3 ms·

For those who are using MariaDB in a business context: does this make you more or less likely to choose it for your next project? I don't know anything about

For those who are using MariaDB in a business context: does this make you more or less likely to choose it for your next project? I don't know anything about K1, so all I have is confusion (and a sudden urge to switch entirely to postgres).

mathnode 2y ago
From my POV, it's a supplier that is no longer beholden to shareholders demands for profit. A platform and service that can operate using customer sourced revenue and respond to market demand without a profit driven board is a big win for everyone while funding development and maintenance of a great open source project.
- CyanLite2 2y ago
  I think that’s exactly the wrong impression I get. Private equity is going to cause them to quickly get to better profitability through price increases, layoffs, and reduced R&D.
- justinclift 2y ago
  > it's a supplier that is no longer beholden to shareholders demands for profit. That doesn't seem correct. It's now owned by a single shareholder, that's literally a financial organisation of the kind likely to turn the screws until the last drop of blood is gone.
stackskipton 2y ago
I’d say less. This acquisition screams that some MBA looked at their financials, saw money left on table, likely by not completely screwing over customers, and said, let’s do this! Think Broadcom/VMware on smaller scale. You don’t put yourself in debt and replace the CEO unless you see some value not currently being realized. They might even try license shenanigans but with GPLv2, not sure what they can do.
- stephenr 2y ago
  It's a weird scenario where a bunch of people bemoaned Oracle owning MySQL (hence MariaDB exists), and yet Oracle have maintained and allowed MySQL to see huge improvements, and they include their sql proxy under GPL as well. As a weird twist of coincidence and irony, MariaDB's sql proxy is BSL only. I don't think either license is a reason to use/not use the respective DB system (HAproxy exists) but it's always funny to me how the "we must keep it open" group did exactly what they accused Oracle of planning to do.
  - packetlost 2y ago
    Oracle is kind of a shitty company to deal with, but they seem to be doing relatively well with open source these days.
  - re-thc 2y ago
    > and yet Oracle have maintained and allowed MySQL to see huge improvements In the latest twist Oracle is adding things other Heatwave and not MySQL i.e. not open source. It's an ever-changing situation. > (hence MariaDB exists) That's sort of the old take. Lots of new features aren't compatible on both sides. MariaDB has diverged. It just hasn't gained enough traction for those things to matter.
    - stephenr 2y ago
      > That's sort of the old take. Lots of new features aren't compatible on both sides. If by "the old take" you mean "the stated reason they created the fork" then sure. I guess everyone's a revisionist when it's convenient.
- evanelias 2y ago
  I'm usually skeptical of private equity, but in this case I see reasons to not be immediately cynical. The purchase price was only ~$37 million USD, which is quite reasonable considering MariaDB's reach and potential. MariaDB plc has some really talented C++ engineers who are experts in database internals. Their DB has some compelling features that many competitors lack, for example system-versioned tables, Oracle DB compatibility layer, and soon a really nice multi-tenancy feature (catalogs). MariaDB plc has a strong presence in Europe, which I would assume is very appealing for potential European customers. And now they finally have an owner with deeper pockets, which hasn't been true in recent history; their previous financial state likely hindered commercial adoption. If MariaDB can execute well on support and services, I'd imagine their new owners can get a good return on their investment as-is. No need for squeezing and strip-mining them, I don't see how that would even work in this case.
kev009 2y ago
I moved to postgres over a decade ago but have occasionally had to interlope into MySQL/MariaDB infrastructure. IMHO it has been a lesser choice for a long time, typically just clinging onto it because of legacy reasons or an over-involved executive but these people are also typically very proud and protective over the thing they know. Realistically if you need the MySQL semantics (eww) and wire protocol TiDB or a hosted offering like Aurora DB have been better choices for a long time now.
- walth 2y ago
  For single instances, this seems very true. For complex multi-member clusters Maria/MySQL are quite far ahead.
  - kev009 2y ago
    Ahead of what? Compatibles completely eclipse MySQL's operation model by any conceivable metric or operational hygiene.
whalesalad 2y ago
I jumped ship from mysql/mariadb to psql over a decade ago and can't imagine why I would ever look back.

mathnode 2y ago

From my POV, it's a supplier that is no longer beholden to shareholders demands for profit. A platform and service that can operate using customer sourced revenue and respond to market demand without a profit driven board is a big win for everyone while funding development and maintenance of a great open source project.

CyanLite2 2y ago
I think that’s exactly the wrong impression I get. Private equity is going to cause them to quickly get to better profitability through price increases, layoffs, and reduced R&D.
justinclift 2y ago
> it's a supplier that is no longer beholden to shareholders demands for profit. That doesn't seem correct. It's now owned by a single shareholder, that's literally a financial organisation of the kind likely to turn the screws until the last drop of blood is gone.

stackskipton 2y ago

I’d say less. This acquisition screams that some MBA looked at their financials, saw money left on table, likely by not completely screwing over customers, and said, let’s do this! Think Broadcom/VMware on smaller scale. You don’t put yourself in debt and replace the CEO unless you see some value not currently being realized. They might even try license shenanigans but with GPLv2, not sure what they can do.

stephenr 2y ago
It's a weird scenario where a bunch of people bemoaned Oracle owning MySQL (hence MariaDB exists), and yet Oracle have maintained and allowed MySQL to see huge improvements, and they include their sql proxy under GPL as well. As a weird twist of coincidence and irony, MariaDB's sql proxy is BSL only. I don't think either license is a reason to use/not use the respective DB system (HAproxy exists) but it's always funny to me how the "we must keep it open" group did exactly what they accused Oracle of planning to do.
- packetlost 2y ago
  Oracle is kind of a shitty company to deal with, but they seem to be doing relatively well with open source these days.
- re-thc 2y ago
  > and yet Oracle have maintained and allowed MySQL to see huge improvements In the latest twist Oracle is adding things other Heatwave and not MySQL i.e. not open source. It's an ever-changing situation. > (hence MariaDB exists) That's sort of the old take. Lots of new features aren't compatible on both sides. MariaDB has diverged. It just hasn't gained enough traction for those things to matter.
  - stephenr 2y ago
    > That's sort of the old take. Lots of new features aren't compatible on both sides. If by "the old take" you mean "the stated reason they created the fork" then sure. I guess everyone's a revisionist when it's convenient.
evanelias 2y ago
I'm usually skeptical of private equity, but in this case I see reasons to not be immediately cynical. The purchase price was only ~$37 million USD, which is quite reasonable considering MariaDB's reach and potential. MariaDB plc has some really talented C++ engineers who are experts in database internals. Their DB has some compelling features that many competitors lack, for example system-versioned tables, Oracle DB compatibility layer, and soon a really nice multi-tenancy feature (catalogs). MariaDB plc has a strong presence in Europe, which I would assume is very appealing for potential European customers. And now they finally have an owner with deeper pockets, which hasn't been true in recent history; their previous financial state likely hindered commercial adoption. If MariaDB can execute well on support and services, I'd imagine their new owners can get a good return on their investment as-is. No need for squeezing and strip-mining them, I don't see how that would even work in this case.

kev009 2y ago

I moved to postgres over a decade ago but have occasionally had to interlope into MySQL/MariaDB infrastructure. IMHO it has been a lesser choice for a long time, typically just clinging onto it because of legacy reasons or an over-involved executive but these people are also typically very proud and protective over the thing they know. Realistically if you need the MySQL semantics (eww) and wire protocol TiDB or a hosted offering like Aurora DB have been better choices for a long time now.

walth 2y ago
For single instances, this seems very true. For complex multi-member clusters Maria/MySQL are quite far ahead.
- kev009 2y ago
  Ahead of what? Compatibles completely eclipse MySQL's operation model by any conceivable metric or operational hygiene.

whalesalad 2y ago

I jumped ship from mysql/mariadb to psql over a decade ago and can't imagine why I would ever look back.