3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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".