PlanetMysql.ru — информация о СУБД MySQL

Fall is being coy this year in the Northeast. We've been having on and off spells of very mild, almost summer-like weather over the last few weeks. That trend seems to be finally ending, alas, as there is possible snow forecasted for the weekend in New Hampshire. As the old joke goes, if you don't like the weather here, just wait five minutes.

The fall also brings hunting to the area. The annual moose season just concluded (you need to enter a special lottery to get a moose permit), but deer season is just about to open. My son and I won't be participating this year, but we recently purchased the appropriate tools of the trade, a shotgun to hunt in southern NH (where you can't hunt deer with a rifle) and a Mosin Nagant 91/30 for the rest of the state. The later is probably overkill, but my son saved up his pennies to buy it, being a student of both WWII and all things Soviet. Hopefully, he won't dislocate his shoulder firing it ...

Meanwhile, in the wider world ...

John McCarthy: 1927-2011

It's been a sad month for the computer industry, with the deaths of Steve Jobs and Dennis Ritchie already fact. Less well known, but equally influential, AI pioneer and LISP creator John McCarthy passed away on Sunday. McCarthy was involved in the creation of two of the preeminent AI research facilities in the world, at MIT and Stanford, and he is generally credited with coining the term "artificial intelligence."

LISP has had its periods of popularity, peaking in the 1980s, but it's never been a mainstream language in the way that C, FORTRAN, BASIC or Java was. What people tend to forget is just how old LISP really is. Only FORTRAN, COBOL and ALGOL are older then LISP, which came on the scene in 1958. Many of the concepts we take for granted today, such as closures, first saw light in LISP. It also lives in the hearts of Emacs and AutoCAD, among others, and LISP is the language used in much of the groundbreaking artificial intelligence work.

On a side note, when I first met my wife and told her I was involved in the AI field, she gave me a truly strange look. She had a BA in animal science, you see, and in that field "AI" stands for artificial insemination.

Velocity Europe, being held Nov. 8-9 in Berlin, will bring together the web operations and performance communities for two days of critical training, best practices, and case studies.

Save 20% on registration with the code RADAR20

Someone finally admits the dirty truth about the GPL

If you listen to Richard Stallman, the GPL is all about being a coercive force that will eventually drive all software to be free (as in freedom.) Those of us who watch such things have noticed that it has a paradoxical effect, however. Companies like MySQL (now Oracle) use it the same way that drug dealers offer free samples to new customers. "The first one's free, but you'll be back for more." In other words, they get you hooked by offering a GPL version, but cash in when you want to use their product for commercial purposes because the GPL is too dangerous for most companies.

Now, python developer Zed Shaw has brought the GPL's dirty little secret into the light of day. In a particularly NSFW rant, Shaw explains why he chooses to use the GPL these days. In short, it's because he's sick of developers at companies getting to be heroes by using his stuff and getting the glory. "I use the GPL to keep you honest. You now have to tell your bosses you're using my gear. And it will scare the piss out of them." He goes on to say that he's using the GPL as a stick to force companies to pay him to use his software.

This goes right to the very core of the debate about what free/open software should be about. Is it a tool to make all software free? Is it a way to allow "good" people (i.e., non-commercial users) to have access while punishing "bad" people (professional developers)? Personally, I'm thrilled that Southwest Airlines uses a Java library I created for another client years ago and open sourced, but evidently some people (especially those who aren't getting paid to maintain open-source projects by a day job) want to get paid for their efforts.

I find the logic a bit questionable. I don't see a lot of difference between a free software developer who holds corporate users' feet to the fire and a commercial software developer. Sure, it still allows hobbyists and educational users to use the software for free, but it's actually acting to discourage companies from getting involved in FL/OSS by encouraging the wrong model. When companies use open-source software in their products, they are more likely to contribute back to the project and to open source other non-critical code they produce. If they are paying a developer for it, they are much less likely to contribute back.

The Steve Jobs movie: I predict lots of people walking and talking

With the Steve Jobs biography currently sitting at the top of Amazon's bestseller list, Sony Pictures is wasting no time getting a film adaptation underway. The current buzz is that Aaron Sorkin, creator of the West Wing and winner of the Academy Award for his adaptation of "The Social Network," is on the short list to write the screenplay.

It would be interesting to see how Sorkin would tackle Jobs' story, full and complex as it is. One approach might be to leave out the '80s, already covered to some degree in "Pirates of Silicon Valley," and concentrate instead on his youth and the last 15 years of his life. One can only hope that the technological details are not hopelessly mangled in an attempt to make it accessible.

Got news?

Please send tips and leads here.

Related:

• Ruminations on the legacy of Steve Jobs
• How Free Software Contributed to the Success of Steve Jobs and Apple
• FOSS isn't always the answer
• More Developer Week in Review coverage

Microsoft: “more than half your Android devices are belong to us”. And more

# Microsoft claimed that more than half of the world’s ODM industry for Android and Chrome devices is now under license to Microsoft’s patent portfolio following its agreement with Compal Electronics.

# Hadapt expanded its board of directors and confirmed its $9.5m series A funding round.

# Appcelerator entered into an agreement to acquire the Particle Code mobile gaming and HTML5 development platform.

# Jaspersoft and IBM are working together to combine InfoSphere BigInsights with Jaspersoft’s full BI suite.

# Karmasphere announced its new Hadoop Virtual Appliance for IBM InfoSphere BigInsights.

# Neo Technology launched Spring Data Neo4j 2.0.

# Opscode extended Chef, Hosted Chef and Private Chef to provide infrastructure automation in Windows environments.

# Sourcefire announced plans to support Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization

# Percona added support for MySQL Cluster.

# Avere Systems partnered with Nexenta Systems to combine Avere’s FXT Series of appliances and Nexenta’s NexentaStor open source ZFS technology.

# The Qt project is now up and running.

# Zed A Shaw explained why he has licensed Lamson under the GPL.

HPCC (High Performance Computing Cluster) is a massive parallel-processing computing platform that solves Big Data problems. The platform is now Open Source!

• Real-time query performance (as opposed to only analytic jobs). HPCC offers two difference setups, labelled Thor and Roxie. Functionalitywise, Thor should be compared to a Map/Reduce cluster like Hadoop: it's good for doing fairly long running analyses on large volumes of data. Roxie is a different beast, and designed to offer fast data access, supporting ad-hoc real-time queries
• Integrated toolset (as opposed to hodgepodge of third party tools). We're talking about an IDE, job monitoring, code repository, scheduler, configuration manager, and whatnot. This really looks like like big productivity boosters, which may make Big Data processing a lot more accessible to companies that don't have the kind of development teams required to work with Hadoop.

• ECL, the "Enterprise Control Language", which is a declarative query language (as opposed to just Map/Reduce). This initially seems like a big difference but Hadoop has tools like pig and sqoop and hive. Now, it could be that ECL is vastly superior to these hadoop tools, but my hunch is you'd have to be careful in how you position that. If you choose a head-on strategy in promoting ECL as opposed to pig, then the chances are that people will just spend their energy in discovering the things that pig can do and ECL cannot (not sure if those features actually exist, but that is what hadoop fanboys will look for), and in addition, the pig developers might simply clone the unique ECL features and the leveling of that playing field will just be a matter of time. This does not mean you shouldn't promote ECL - on the contrary, if you feel it is a more productive language than pig or any other hadoop tool, then by all means let your customers and prospects know. Just be careful and avoid downplaying the hadoop equivalents because that strategy could backfire.


• Windows support. It's really nice that HPCC Systems is available for Microsoft Windows, it makes that a lot easier for Microsoft shops (and there are a lot of them). That said, customers that really have a big-data problem will solve it no matter what their internal software policies are. So they'd happily start running hadoop on linux if that solves their problems.
• Maturity. On paper HPCC looks more mature than hadoop. It's hard to tell how much that matters though because hadoop has all the momentum. People might choose for hadoop because they anticipate that the maturity will come thanks to the sheer number of developers committing to that platform.

There is much talk about MySQL forks and how they are going to replace MySQL, or take over MySQL user base, or become more powerful/profitable/popular/you-name-it than MySQL itself. Let's clear some air on this topic. There is more about forks than meets the eye, especially if you think about a few obvious facts. What's a fork? According to Wikipedia a project fork happens when developers take a legal copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software.

• The Percona distribution. This is a collection of a few distinct patches in the server, coupled with a fork of the InnoDB plugin, named XtraDB, and an independent tool for backup (XtraBackup). This fork has a solid business background. Every patch has been developed to meet user requests, and the engineers at Percona maintain them appropriately.
• Then we have the MariaDB fork, which is a series of changes to the MySQL core, motivated by the desire of the developers to build a rich set of feature enhancements while being backward compatible to the main distribution. The business model is thus a fast track of new features and bug fixes to customers.
• And then there is Drizzle, which has even less business traction than MariaDB, but a very well defined goal of creating a lightweight database by re-engineering a bare bones stripped down version of MySQL that is now very distant from its origins.

1. I need the feature provided by Percona or MariaDB, or I need a quick bug fix that I can't get from the slow roadmap at Oracle. I trust that this handful of people are able to maintain that little code that differs from MySQL and matters to me. So I don't care if they don't have 100 developers on the task.
2. Given Oracle's track record in other Open Source projects, I don't trust them to deliver MySQL according to FOSS principles, so let's go for true Open Source alternatives.
3. Most MySQL developers have now left Oracle, and so the forks have more chances of being higher quality.
4. Cool! MariaDB/Percona has a bunch of features more than MySQL. It must be better. Let's use it.
5. I like new technology. Let's plunge into them!

A catchy headline, and I believe more accurate than Oracle Puts the Squeeze on SMBs with MySQL Price Hike (Network World) and MySQL price hikes reveal depth of Oracle’s wallet love [MySQL Jacking up MySQL Prices] (The Register). Slightly more realistic is Oracle kills low-priced MySQL support (again The Register).

First, let’s review what Oracle has actually done: they ditched the MySQL enterprise Basic and Silver offerings. For Oracle, that makes sense. Their intended client base is “enterprise” (high end, think big corporates) and their MySQL sales and cost structure reflects this. It’s not a new thing that came with MySQL at Oracle, because MySQL at Sun Microsystems and MySQL AB before it had the same approach.

A company simply cannot operate below its market – that is not simply a matter of choice, instead it is dictated by their processes and cost structure. Smart people like Clayton Christensen at Harvard Business School have done ample research on this, here I’ll just give one simple example:

If you hire a sales person on commission and their quarterly quota is $100k, then they have to talk with clients that have at least a $10k-$20k potential (qualified leads), and they need to close (sign contract) with at least 10 within the period. They simply cannot spend any time on talking with potential $1k customers.

We may lament this state of affairs, but you can see how, given the choices made (sales person hired, commission system, quota), it’s as inevitable as an apple falling when you drop it. The way I describe this at Upstarta: if a company wants different results, they need to make sure that their business processes and cost structure lead them in that direction. But the simple fact is that most companies don’t have an internal feedback cycle that keeps an eye on these things, so they just go with the flow of consequences of common choices: aim for large(r) clients, grow turnover, get higher operational costs along the way – that in itself is a cycle and the only direction this particular one can go is up. As a natural consequence, over time old low-end offerings and clients need to be jettisoned – one way or another.

I say horay for Oracle to finally acknowledge this, since Sun Microsystems and MySQL AB before it did not (for whatever reason). This is years overdue. Whether the original MySQL company should have aimed to also serve smaller clients also is an entirely separate topic – and one which I covered at length previously (including internally in my time at MySQL AB), but it’s very much a station long passed. Once you float upward in the market, you can’t operate or move downward.

Now, are SMBs using MySQL actually getting squeezed by Oracle? They are not. There is no lock-in. This is about service contracts, not licensing. As we all know, MySQL is GPL licensed and internal use (even on a website or SaaS offering) is well within GPL parameters. There are a number of different companies offering service for MySQL, different types of service and delivery models and a corresponding wide range of pricing. So SMBs and anyone else has a choice, each can pick the type of service most suited to their needs. Let us celebrate and promote that freedom within the MySQL ecosystem, rather than being outraged about dropped apples falling!

In my time at MySQL AB in the Community Relations possition (2004-2006) I wrote several articles on MySQL’s licensing for the MySQL web site. The core reason for having to explain anything was (and still is) the dual licensing of MySQL, in particular the client library. I left MySQL AB years ago, but people still ask me licensing questions. Below is an excerpt from one such question, and my response.

> Hi, Found a post on the mysql website from Arjen Lentz to do with the whole
> mysql licensing question.
> Do you know if the issue with, php scripts (that use a mysql database) issued
> under a proprietary license require you to have a commercial license for
> mysql, or will the issues be covered for the GPL version through the fact
> that the scripts run via php which in-turn connects to the GPL mysql server
> for which the FOSS exception applies.

Note: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.

The issue might be a bit fuzzy since you are actually dependent on MySQL server, whether or not you are “linking”. So the linkage could be there anyway (there’s no consensus on this interpretation of “linking”, it is however the viewpoint of some – hence the fuzzyness).

My recommendation to you would be to not fuss with any nasty licensing for the PHP code you create for clients. While this provides the client with more freedom, you are the expert and thus the first choice for any support and future development. Providing clients with freedom tends to bind them more to you, while restrictions tend to make them look around for alternatives.

Your clients are in whatever business they’re in, which is probably not PHP code development; it’s not in their interest to go spend time on that or undermining you, unless you were to provide bad service.

If you approach your software in this way with your clients, you can generally GPL it and do equal or better business while not having to worry about nettly licensing questions. You don’t want to base your business on a legal argument, as you just don’t want the question to get raised to begin with… it’d be costly and distracting (if not destructive).

Any re-implementations of this protocol must also be under GPL, unless one has got an license from MySQL AB stating otherwise.

$ bzr annotate --long --all  sql/net_serv.cc |  head -n 24 |tail -n 9
2476.648.3   cmiller@xxxxx   20071011 | /**                   
2476.648.3   cmiller@xxxxx   20071011 |   @file
2476.648.3   cmiller@xxxxx   20071011 | 
1616.1722.3  joerg@xxxxx     20050307 |   This file is the net layer API for the MySQL client/server protocol,
1616.1722.3  joerg@xxxxx     20050307 |   which is a tightly coupled, proprietary protocol owned by MySQL AB.
2476.648.3   cmiller@xxxxx   20071011 |   @note
1616.1722.3  joerg@xxxxx     20050307 |   Any re-implementations of this protocol must also be under GPL
1616.1722.3  joerg@xxxxx     20050307 |   unless one has got an license from MySQL AB stating otherwise.
1616.1722.3  joerg@xxxxx     20050307 | 

$ bzr branch -r tag:mysql-4.1.2 lp:mysql-server/5.1 branch4.1.2
$ cd branch4.1.2
$ bzr annotate --long --all  sql/net_serv.cc |  head -n 24 |tail -n 9
2           bk@xxxxxxx  20000731 |                             
1098.3.1    monty@xxxx  20020723 | /*
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 |   This file is the net layer API for the MySQL client/server protocol,
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 |   which is a tightly coupled, proprietary protocol owned by MySQL AB.
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 |   Any re-implementations of this protocol must also be under GPL
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 |   unless one has got an license from MySQL AB stating otherwise.
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 | */
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 | 
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 | /*

$bzr log -r 1538.19.1
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 1538.19.1
committer: monty@xxxx
timestamp: Wed 2003-06-04 18:28:51 +0300

Topics for this podcast:

*Matt Asay moves from Alfresco to Canonical
*GPL fade fuels heated discussion
*Apple’s iPad and its enterprise and open source impact
*Open source in data warehousing and storage
*Our perspective on Oracle’s plans for Sun open source

iTunes or direct download (32:50, 9.2 MB)

We’re continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license may be fading from favor among commercial open source software players. The latest move away from the GPL comes from content management software vendor Alfresco, which is moving to the LGPL after originally releasing its code under the GPL three years ago. The reasoning for the shift, according to Alfresco CEO John Newton, is the company sees greater opportunity beyond being a software application, particularly given the emergence of the Content Management Interoperability Services standard. Alfresco won mostly praise for its move, and it does make sense given where open source is going these days.

I believe the emerging trend away from GPL and toward more permissive, mixable licenses such as LGPL or Apache reflects the broadening out of open source software not only throughout the enterprise IT software stack, but also throughout uses beyond individual applications, frameworks and systems. More and more open source software vendors are pursuing opportunities in embedded use or OEM deals whereby open source software often must sit alongside or even inside of proprietary code and products. Similar to what we’ve seen in the mobile space — where open source software and development are more prominent than ever, but end products with accessible code are not — open source is broadening out, but it is doing so in many cases by integrating with proprietary code.

We also see some debate about the community and commercial ups and downs of GPL as organizations contemplate the balance of the two and the best way to achieve commercial success with open source software. As Matt highlights, we are seeing a choice of non-GPL licensing in order to more effectively foster community and third-party involvement, but we also continue to see GPL as a top choice to similarly build community.

While the debate about community versus commercial benefit may not necessarily be prompting movement away from GPL, I believe another recent action may indeed do so. The latest series of GPL lawsuits are aimed at raising awareness, profile and legitimacy for open source software. While those bringing the suits — primarily the Software Freedom Law Center — have exhibited a reasonable approach and settled with past lawsuit targets, these suits and publicity may still serve to steer organizations making the choice to other licenses, including the LGPL, BSD, Apache and the Eclipse Public License.

Another factor is the GPL thumping that took place during the SaveMySQL campaign as the European Commission contemplated Oracle’s proposed (and now closed) acquisition of Sun Microsystems and the open source MySQL. I voiced my concern that the SaveMySQL campaign might jeopardize or de-value open source software projects and pieces in M&A, but I believe I’m actually in agreement with SaveMySQL leader Monty Widenius that the deal and process may end up tarnishing the GPL and its reputation in the enterprise.

As stated above, much of the movement we’re seeing away from the GPL has to do with the desire and opportunity to place open source software alongside, within, on top of or otherwise with proprietary software. Non-GPL open source licenses are also more flexible in terms of integrating and bundling with other open source software licensed under other, non-GPL licenses.

We anticipated this fade of GPL as covered in our report, The Myth of Open Source License Proliferation. Given its clout, durability and continued popularity in commercial open source (and with help from continued growth of GPL-licensed Linux) we believe the GPL will endure as a top open source license. However, given their flexibility and the ability to combine with other code, we see a number of other challengers — Apache, BSD, EPL and LGPL — rising while GPL dominance wanes. We’re also watching to see whether the AGPLv3 for networked software will provide new life for GPL-style licensing and community building in emerging virtualized, SaaS and cloud computing environments.

Topics for this podcast:

*Open source in consumer devices
*VMware-Zimbra deal highlights open source, cloud
*A capitalist’s guide to open source licensing
*Latest on Oracle-Sun-MySQL, M&A implications

iTunes or direct download (24:48, 5.7 MB)