4 ms·

MariaDB is one of the biggest ironies to me: it was started because people claimed Oracle was going to do Oracle things with it, and somehow make it not open an

MariaDB is one of the biggest ironies to me: it was started because people claimed Oracle was going to do Oracle things with it, and somehow make it not open any more. What actually happened is: - Oracle has just made MySQL better, and continues to release new tooling (e.g. mysql router) for it under the same license (gpl2). - MariaDB releases the bare minimum database engine under the GPL, and uses closed licenses for the tooling which is, to quote them: "an essential element to any production database environment".

jchw 2y ago
I wouldn't really put too much weight into the marketing speak, MariaDB feels like the same MySQL offering that always existed, at least to me (and I do run it in production, albeit only on a small scale.) And MariaDB has done plenty of work that is available in the open source product: performance improvements, new storage engines and so on. The only thing that's surprising is that MySQL continued to do the same. I don't think what MariaDB is doing today is what everyone was really worried about Oracle doing. Rather, Oracle simply never did what everyone thought they would. Personally, I think MariaDB keeps them honest, and if MariaDB ceased to exist as a serious alternative there is a good chance the lawnmower would fire back up. Though who knows. Maybe Oracle is different. However, I would prefer not to waste the openness of my mind. I reckon if they thought they could pull the rug they would do so.
- stephenr 2y ago
  I wasn't suggesting it's the exact same scenario, but it definitely seems a little disingenuous to create a fork of something that you chose to sell, and complain (https://web.archive.org/web/20201003111459/https://www2.computerworld.com.au/article/457551/dead_database_walking_mysql_creator_why_future_belongs_mariadb/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201003111459/https://www2.comp...) about it becoming "open core", only to then make everything you do a paid product with the one exception. That's before we get into his claims about maintaining drop-in compatibility "as long as MySQL has a larger user base than MariaDB".

jchw 2y ago

I wouldn't really put too much weight into the marketing speak, MariaDB feels like the same MySQL offering that always existed, at least to me (and I do run it in production, albeit only on a small scale.) And MariaDB has done plenty of work that is available in the open source product: performance improvements, new storage engines and so on. The only thing that's surprising is that MySQL continued to do the same. I don't think what MariaDB is doing today is what everyone was really worried about Oracle doing. Rather, Oracle simply never did what everyone thought they would. Personally, I think MariaDB keeps them honest, and if MariaDB ceased to exist as a serious alternative there is a good chance the lawnmower would fire back up. Though who knows. Maybe Oracle is different. However, I would prefer not to waste the openness of my mind. I reckon if they thought they could pull the rug they would do so.

stephenr 2y ago
I wasn't suggesting it's the exact same scenario, but it definitely seems a little disingenuous to create a fork of something that you chose to sell, and complain (https://web.archive.org/web/20201003111459/https://www2.computerworld.com.au/article/457551/dead_database_walking_mysql_creator_why_future_belongs_mariadb/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201003111459/https://www2.comp...) about it becoming "open core", only to then make everything you do a paid product with the one exception. That's before we get into his claims about maintaining drop-in compatibility "as long as MySQL has a larger user base than MariaDB".