Hmm, this has certainly been an interesting discussion. I personally think that forking the code accomplishes nothing at all. What's so tough about making a patch to 3.23 and sending it to the MySQL developers? I also doubt that anyone working on the new fork will be able to convince thousands of web hosts to replace MySQL with 'WSSQL', particularly if they start changing standard MySQL behavior and breaking existing applications. However, if Shelby manages to speed up MySQL by coding assembly for every platform MySQL runs on, than I for one will be impressed ; )
> In fact, I already emailed the developers yesterday, and asked if I > could > pay to have the particular feature I wanted prioritized at this time. Strange how open source developers don't always answer to the almighty dollar, eh? > In general though, I think it sort of like Windows. Every new release > is a > major cost to the installed base to upgrade. Many people here may not > think twice about the cost of upgrading to 4.x, because many people here > may enjoy the technology. > > But in business, we don't like change. We like the same thing to work > the > same way over and over again. The more repetitions we can get, then the > higher the economy of scale and thus the higher the profit (and I lot > more > time for me to spend with my family). Oddly enough, the 4.0 releases won't change MySQL's behavior, unless of course you are utilizing the new features. Your changes DO affect its behavior, and may introduce new bugs into previously stable and well-tested code. Also, I'm not sure what the 'costs' of upgrading to version 4.0 might be. The 'cost' of new features? Or maybe a few extra megs of disk space? > So my focus is more on taking what I already thought was wonderful > (3.23) > and focusing on making it perfect for the needs of what most people do > with > a database and a typical web site. And being able to that with less > noise > and more directness. > > I tend to think no one here will be interested in that kind of focus, > because he sort of flies in the face of the granduer. I am not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I think that MySQL is a great example of a focused open-source project. It has clearly stated goals (speed, ease of use), and while new versions may add new features, they don't slow the database down or make it more difficult to use. > OFF TOP MY HEAD: But I am keeping in mind that the people on this list > are > developers and knowledgeable users (or at least the ones paying > attention > to this topic). I think this is quite different from the needs that > actual > users might express. I think a lot of potential users want a database > on > their web site, and haven't the slightest clue how to achieve it. I > could > close that gab with my Cool Page product (have been planning something > like > this for a while, e.g. drag+drop forms and database integration). And I > would like to have access to a database that wasn't trying to compete > with > Oracle, because I just don't feel those features will do anything for > this > market I see. And it just adds complexity. Adding subselects to MySQL is a feature that many, many people have requested; most of the other items on the to do list have been discussed extensively here as well. I haven't searched the list archives, but I've been subscribed to this list for a long time, and I can't recall even one other person requesting that the DEFAULT behavior be modified. Ben --------------------------------------------------------------------- Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
