Re: New fork of MySQL
What's so tough about making a patch to 3.23 and sending it to the MySQL developers? 3.23 will not the most current cvs soon I assume. Or does MySQL actively support, debug, fix, and go back and maintain older releases? I also doubt that anyone working on the new fork will be able to convince thousands of web hosts to replace MySQL with 'WSSQL', Well I could own a growing host as well. For now, I gave all my users to let someone else run it: http://coolpagehosting.com I think there are several thousand users already and hasn't be up long. But the number of servers running MySQL is very small compared to the number of web sites. So the race is wide open still. If someone else were to present a better option to the millions of users, this could transform into popularity on the backend. To keep from getting too angry at me, think of these things in the context of the alternative. Microsoft .Net is coming. Take a look at the new toolbar in Hotmail, just to get an idea of how Microsoft is going to convert their 97% market share on the desktop and browser, into same on the backend. particularly if they start changing standard MySQL behavior and breaking existing applications. Ditto the above points. However, if Shelby manages to speed up MySQL by coding assembly for every platform MySQL runs on, than I for one will be impressed ; ) No comment. 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? I asked kindly that you not turn this into a personal attack on me. Can I please ask you to stop I am showing you respect by not responding on this point, other than to say please don't go there. Oddly enough, the 4.0 releases won't change MySQL's behavior, unless of course you are utilizing the new features. The mysql.com announcement about 4.0 disagrees with your assertion. Your changes DO affect its behavior, What changes? I did not make any yet. Are you dragging information from my other thread into this one? and may introduce new bugs into previously stable and well-tested code. Any changes by any one can do this. What is your point? 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? Time? Hassle? Compile issues? Etc. 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. I agree. That doesn't mean though that the improvements schedule is meeting the needs of everyone who is already a user. Some users may have different priorities. Please respect our right to state our opinion and have discussions to determine whether there is enough reason to fork or not. It is a discovery process. I for one, do not have a closed-mind about it. Adding subselects to MySQL is a feature that many, many people have requested; How many? And how many users of MySQL are there? And how many of MySQL could there potentially be? These are very different numbers and very important distinctions. But I don't want to have this debate with you. If you aren't interested in this project, then kindly stay off this thread, or at least kindly do not take personal stabs at me. most of the other items on the to do list have been discussed extensively here as well. I will grant you that I was not here on this list when those discussions occurred. 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. That is my pet issue perhaps. Obviously one would not fork over one small issue like that. You are dragging the other thread into this one. I am thinking of a much wider issue, which is how can I be sure that my investment in and use of MySQL will not be overcome by other forces which desire that it be something very different. When I first authorized the use of MySQL, I was told that is was focused on simplicity, speed, and every improving SQL compliance (i.e. that the little thorns would not be ignored forever). You may very well be correct, that it is alarmist to assume that the little SQL mistakes won't be fixed fully soon. And that other little issues that keep a product from being perfect at the fundamental level, won't be ignored. You may be right about that. Then again, you may not be. But I have investment to worry about. For others who have investment to worry about, they may look at 4.0 and ask themselves what they are getting, and whether they feel secure about the improvement that has been
Re: New fork of MySQL
I will end my involvement in this thread, because I sense there is too much noise coming. If any one with good experience in the MySQL source code base would like to do some well paid, contracting work for me, please do not hesistate to email me privately. Thank you for your consideration of my proposal. We'll see what can be done to add some alternatives. - 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
Re: OT: Default forced on MySQL;
I just got back in from a nice day in the park with my kids and my parents. All I can say to defend myself is that I'm sorry I did not bow to you thy King. And I am sorry if I have my own opinions and personality. I will try to conform asap to Big Brother's wishes. And I am sorry that my apologies were not humiliating enough for you. And if that is not enough, then please continue to extract blood... ...in the meantime, I will continue where it really matters. Good luck to all. And good luck to MySQL. It is a great tool. Thanks for giving me the chance in my last email to set the record straight on my record. The archives will speak for themselves. At 04:18 PM 11/8/2001 +, you wrote: On Thursday 08 Nov 2001 14:53, DownloadFAST.com wrote: First of all, I am going to state right now that I have not witnessed this discussion first hand (probably a good thing, too). The comments here reffer to what you said in your email, and what can be found in the archives. Personally, I thought this was definitely the most amusing thread in recent memory... It wasn't particularly amusing to me. Especially when one of you who disagrees with me, decided to add my email to a bunch of adult spam lists. Do you have any evidence to corroborate this? If so I'm impressed. Please, tell us what your sources are - maybe we can use the information to reduce the amount of spam going around. Assuming (and you should know what assume does) in this particular instance is actually a very well known logical error: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. (IIR my Latin correctly) It means: After it, therefore because of it. From a purely logical point of view, that argument doesn't make sense. IMHO, it is far more likely that your email address has been harvested by a mail bot. Accusing people without evidence in a public forum, especially after claiming seriousness on your own part is BAD practice, and not at all good for credibility. MySQL just better hope that I continue to love the product so much, that I do not post this thread for other corporations considering the professionalism of the community. That sounds threatening. Let's not start sabre-rattling here. You might just loose credibility. Remember your list is linked from the main MySQL.com web site, and I think that means you need to be cautious with how you swoop done on new people who come here representing their corporation. In fact, they are lurking and they are not impressed, given the supportive email I received privately. Representing in what way? There are good, helpful and friendly ways. There are also others that involve shoving your (not necessarily your corporation's) views (right or wrong, let's not go into it) down other people's throats. Speaking out against open source products by generalising, ESPECIALLY on a mailing list for an open-source product (if there is any truth in what you quoted somebody to have said) is asking for trouble. Especially after criticising the documentation that you obviously haven't read properly. I make oversights myself, as far as documentation reading goes. But at least I don't go in head-long convinced that I'm 100% right. I think what you are demonstrating quite effectively is that if someone does not agree with the standard line of thinking in the group, then they will be chastized by the group. I have had several people from the list email me privately and give me their support. Frankly, after having just read through the archives, I am absolutely stunned with the patience some people, especially Sinisa have shown you, in face of blatant provocation verging on abuse. Some of your comments, e.g. There are few poeple here trying to lock out any outsider with a controversial opinion. verge on paranoid. Have you looked at the MySQL source code? From your comments, I am pretty sure you haven't. And yet you feel you know enough about it to say that a modification is simple. You don't know enough to make that call. Sinisa does. Get over it. If you think you are that good, then go and make a patch and submit it for inclusion in the source! I hate to break this to you, but that's the way open-source software development is supposed to work. There is a not-so-fine line between constructive criticism and abuse. IMHO, you have crossed it. Then you go on to say: Sure there are those people trying to use MySQL to replace Oracle, but IMO they should be the ones to have caveats, not the majority. Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc. are all good products - and they are all good at different things. It all boils down to cost effectiveness and performance. If Oracle is good for you, and you can afford it - go for it. The whole point of there being multiple products is that you can pick the one the most closely matches your requirements. MySQL documentation has a very nicely reasoned PostgreSQL vs. MySQL section. After having read it, at least I know that MySQL is developed
New fork of MySQL
I have not read the MySQL license in detail. Does it allow someone or a group to start another fork of the source that is independent from the current developers? If yes, is any one else interested in starting a fork in which the primary goal would be to improve the smaller todos and performance for small sites (the majority who use MySQL)? It seems to me that the direction of MySQL is now heading more towards big sites given the features in 4.0. Since people in this list have challenged me, I have decided it would be best to rise to their challenge and create a whole other fork if possible. I also think we could create a community that is more tolerant of ideas and dissent. Again my proposal would be for a very small community of core developers, and for a very narrow focus of basically taking the stable 3.23 release and merely refining it. And try to make a product to sell for profit which would be more targetted towards the newbie user who wants to pay $100 for a database for his web site. And the core developers would share the profits. We would keep this group small so as to avoid the politics and inefficiences of large focuses. But we would maintain professional lines of communication with all users and readily accept their needs and dissent. Any one interested in trying to do something like this and make a profit while doing so?? I understand we would have to donate our work back to open source and I don't see a conflict with that. This would remove MySQL core group from the annoyance of people like me who just want a solid 3.23 with the little refinements done. For those who outgrow our product, they could easily migrate to the full MySQL 4.x and later. Let me know if you think my idea has merit. But please no personal attacks and all that other noise. Just to the point if we can. - 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
New fork of MySQL [wssql.com]
So far, one developer of MySQL has emailed me and said he would help. I propose we wait to see how many developers are interested, then take a vote how to structure. If we don't get enough interested developers, then I guess that means the proposal dies. I am not interested in being in control. I would just want to be a contributor. Thinking of a possible name, I start by suggesting Web Site SQL, which I think is direct to MySQL's original focus and broad base. Thus I have registered the wssql.* domains, and will donate them to the project if it happens. Once again, the exact manifesto of this proposed fork could be determined by vote, but my suggestion for the necessity of a new fork is to provide a focus on refining the stable 3.23, rather than trying to compete with Oracle (which appears to be where MySQL is headed with 4.0). If any one else has little things they would like to see improved faster in 3.23 without the need for the complexity of making huge structural changes stable, and if robustness and refinement are your credo over trying to add every database feature for big commercial sites. Then I think that is more or less what I am proposing. A MySQL for simple to medium web sites. Focus could be placed on making the refinements in both code and the interface with users, so that a larger sphere of beginners could be successful. For example, a much improved manual could be created which is more for novice users than technophytes. Again let me emphasize that this would provide a larger base for MySQL and funnel the higher end users to MySQL in their growth path. Even a seasoned developer, might use wsSQL for simple projects and MySQL for advanced ones. As always, the idea is to use the best tool for the job, and to have a tool which is focused on the needs of your job. Shelby Moore CEO DownloadFAST.com, Inc. CEO CoolPage.com (3Dize, Inc.) programmer of Cool Page, Art-o-matic, WordUp, TurboJet key contributor on DownloadFAST, FONTZ!, PhotoModeler, Painter, Dabbler, etc.. 206-374-2943 - 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
Re: New fork of MySQL
[snip] The MySQL source is under the GPL. Any fork must also be under the GPL. You may sell your forked MySQL, but you must also provide the source code. Thanks. No resistence from me about publishing source. Even though I run a small site, I very much like the direction MySQL 4.0 is headed. Features like foreign keys, triggers, and subselects can help small sites as much as big sites (subselects are definitely the least useful feature of those three though...). Features like replication (already in 3.23) are definitely geared more towards big sites. I understand and respect this point of view, and my point of view is counterintuitive. I hope you do not mind if I say there is a big difference between can and will in the above context. I may use all those features someday, but right now I am not, and beginners have other priorities and hurdles to cross first. Marketing is targetting. Effective development is focus on target. I suggest a good book to everyone. It is entitled The 80/20 Rule. It basically says that you do 20% effort for 80% result, and leave the 80% effort and 20% result for your competitor. I think it would be more useful to work on the main branch and add extra value to it, such as Heikki has done. That way all users of MySQL can benefit from your fixes, etc. I RESPECTFULLY disagree because: 1. Integrating changes in an ever more complex code base, can get more and more inefficient. 2. It will be a while before 4.x is stable. Every change we want, has to wait for the rest of MySQL's grand focus to become stable in each iteration. This is not efficient for the target. 3. It is not well focused. (Please don't attack me personally for expressing a strong opinion. I have said nothing personal here) Steve Meyers - 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
Re: New fork of MySQL
Well I would try to leave that up to the people who want to be involved. But I would say that a good place to start might be here: http://www.mysql.com/doc/T/O/TODO_future.html Speeding up the backlog of little things as priority over the major structural changes, which IMHO are away from MySQL's original fast + simplicity focus. Also to perhaps focus more on speed and optimizations. And/or to focus on installation and usage issues for beginners (remember that # of web sites will double every year or soemthing like that). This is very inline with the focus of my other business, CoolPage.com (web page creation for beginners), so I can deliver massive traffic to such a product, and instant profitability. If coolpage.com did a wysiwyg interface to the DB then we could sell them like hot pancakes. :-) I want to see what other people want to do first. The proposal is fluid. At 10:18 PM 11/8/2001 -0800, you wrote: What specific issues are you focusing on? DownloadFAST.com wrote: More points about proposed wsSQL: 1. Another point is that any changes in a separate fork can always be integrated back into the main fork. Nothing is stopping that. I am just proposing some advantages as to why it shouldn't be the minor fork's responsibility to do that. 2. I would not decide this any way. It would be by vote of those who were interested to work on the project. 3. The ultiimate determinant of what the market wants, is to try and find out which fork becomes more popular. I lot can be learned for both forks from such an endeavor. - 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 - 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
Re: New fork of MySQL
Just so you know I am not blowing wind on possible speed enchancement, please let me add that one of my former talents was assembler code. Not to blow my own horn, but simply to state as fact relevant here, I was able to speed up Painter's core paint routines by perhaps 30 - 50%. So although algorithmic changes are usually the largest wins, that is an example one possible way to try to get more speed on some crucial indexing routines perhaps. I'd have to dig into the source before I could say specifically. Then again right now, my personal focus is simply to get some refinements more quickly and with less politics. At 10:18 PM 11/8/2001 -0800, you wrote: What specific issues are you focusing on? DownloadFAST.com wrote: More points about proposed wsSQL: 1. Another point is that any changes in a separate fork can always be integrated back into the main fork. Nothing is stopping that. I am just proposing some advantages as to why it shouldn't be the minor fork's responsibility to do that. 2. I would not decide this any way. It would be by vote of those who were interested to work on the project. 3. The ultiimate determinant of what the market wants, is to try and find out which fork becomes more popular. I lot can be learned for both forks from such an endeavor. - 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 - 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
Re: New fork of MySQL
Steve I take your input very constructively and I personally will definitely reconsider and contemplate more on your point. 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. And I don't think that was to slight any one, and I don't think that outcome would be negative for any one either. 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). 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 may just make my own private fork, and maybe bundle it with Cool Page. I really don't know yet. I will wait to see what other people want. 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. Apologies my thoughts are not too organized here. I will stand back and listen for a while and think about this more. At 12:00 AM 11/9/2001 -0700, you wrote: On Thu, 2001-11-08 at 23:42, DownloadFAST.com wrote: Just so you know I am not blowing wind on possible speed enchancement, please let me add that one of my former talents was assembler code. Not to blow my own horn, but simply to state as fact relevant here, I was able to speed up Painter's core paint routines by perhaps 30 - 50%. So although algorithmic changes are usually the largest wins, that is an example one possible way to try to get more speed on some crucial indexing routines perhaps. I'd have to dig into the source before I could say specifically. Then again right now, my personal focus is simply to get some refinements more quickly and with less politics. I guess my main concern is that it seems like your main reason for forking is political disagreement with developers, and making the code better is only a secondary reason. If that's the case, I respect your decision, but I think the best solution for the end users would be to work out your differences of opinion and try to work together. If your goals are too far different from the MySQL project's goals, then of course maybe a fork is the only good solution. However, I haven't seen anything in your reasoning that would be contrary to the goals of the MySQL developers. On the other hand, MySQL is known for being fast, and for being easy to use for beginning users. I'd like to see what specific refinements you're talking about -- the main reason for version 4.0 is to allow a lot of the features that are on the TODO list. I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I'm just not quite convinced yet and would like to hear more from you about your reasoning and justification for forking the code, as opposed to contributing to the main MySQL code (even if it is in the 3.23 branch). Steve Meyers - 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
