New fork of MySQL
Hi! > "DownloadFAST" == DownloadFAST com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DownloadFAST> I have not read the MySQL license in detail. DownloadFAST> Does it allow someone or a group to start another fork of the source that DownloadFAST> is independent from the current developers? Yes, you are allowed to do a fork. You should however be aware of that it's normally a terrible idea to do a fork a successful GPL project and it will normally hurt the total project more than the benefit you get from it. As we here at MySQL AB work actively with the open source community and are not in the habit of rejecting patches, I don't see any reasons for doing a fork. Could you be kind and explain why you think a fork is necessary and what benefits this would bring you compared to the current situation ? DownloadFAST> If yes, is any one else interested in starting a fork in which the primary DownloadFAST> goal would be to improve the smaller todos and performance for small sites DownloadFAST> (the majority who use MySQL)? I don't see how a fork would help you do that. It's much better to have a coordinate MySQL development to avoid that no one does duplicated work and also to ensure the quality of the server code. We here at MySQL AB are constantly working on adding new features to MySQL that is improving performance and stability for all MySQL users. We also have a open development model that allows anyone to take part of our development plan and also help us with things that they feel are important from them. If you really want to help with MySQL development, then the right way to do this is to email what you want to do and suggestions of how you plan to do this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] All core MySQL developers are on this list and we are actively responding to all emails that are sent to this lists with suggestions and new ideas. If you want to get your changes into the main MySQL version, you have to ensure that you don't break any existing code and that your patch doesn't tie our hands of how we want to do things into the future. You also have to get MySQL AB a shared copyright of the code. Up to date, very few patches of additions to MySQL has been reject (Some has been totally rewritten to better fit MySQL, but that is another story...) DownloadFAST> It seems to me that the direction of MySQL is now heading more towards big DownloadFAST> sites given the features in 4.0. We think that most MySQL users will greatly benefit from all features that we are adding to MySQL. What features on our todo are not interesting to you? We have 10+ developers that are actively working on extending MySQL in a lot of different ways. We are constantly adding both small and big features to MySQL, according to what our users (both paying and not paying) wants to have in MySQL. >From where did you get the idea that we are only working on the MySQL 4.0 TODO and not paying attention of all other things that we have on our todo ? Have you every thought that there is a reason for why we do things in a certain order? (The answer is that if you do things in the right order, you don't have to recode everything when the underlying things changes) The reason we haven't done not DEFAULT checking in MYSQL yet are: a) Not many of the MySQL users have found this important. b) This will be much easier to do when we have done the basic changes we are doing in 4.0 You don't seem to have understood that 4.0 is mainly a format change release to make it easier to do the rest of the things we have on out TODO (like adding DEFAULT checking in a way that it doesn't cause problems with old MySQL applications) Could you please specify more explicitely which features you are interested in having in MySQL? DownloadFAST> Since people in this list have challenged me, I have decided it would be DownloadFAST> best to rise to their challenge and create a whole other fork if possible. No one I know of has challenged you to do a fork. It has come to my attention that some people has suggested that you should yourself add things that you require from MySQL into the MySQL source. This doesn't however in anyway implicate a fork, but instead that you should help the MySQL team with their work. I suggest you read Eric Raymonds books to understand the value of keeping open source project coordinated. DownloadFAST> I also think we could create a community that is more tolerant of ideas and DownloadFAST> dissent. We are MySQL AB are always ready to accept reasonable patches. What more can you ask from us ? DownloadFAST> Again my proposal would be for a very small community of core developers, DownloadFAST> and for a very narrow focus of basically taking the stable 3.23 release and DownloadFAST> merely refining it. And try to make a product to sell for profit which DownloadFAST> would be more targetted towards the newbie user who wants to pay $100 for a DownloadFAST> database for his web site. And the core developers would share the Downl
GPL and MySQL (was: New fork of MySQL)
Paul DuBois writes: > When you distribute a non-GPL application that ONLY works with the MySQL > server and ships it with MySQL. This type of solution is actually > considered to be linking even if it's done over a network. > > I believe that bit about "even if it's done over the network" was > added sometime around last December. I'm not quite sure what to make > of it, particularly in light of the paragraph from the GPL FAQ. Interesting. As the GPL FAQ points out, the interpretation of the GPL in cases like this would ultimately have to be tested in court. I have a feeling that that paragraph on the MySQL site is enough to tip the scales. At least it's enough to make anyone who chooses to bundle MySQL with a non-GPL application aware of the possible license violation that this constitutes. The workaround would of course be to include support for one more RDBMS, or to just not ship with MySQL. Thanks for pointing this out to me. This information may be useful to me in the future, as although I'd love to release it under the GPL, the project I'm working on involves two more people, and they don't seem to be so easy to convince. Specifically, their concern is what potential buyers will think of aquiring something that might be available to their customers for free. My counter-argument would be that if someone wants to pay us to incorporate it into a proprietary product, some sort of value has to be added, and that is what people will pay for. //C -- Carl Troein - Círdan / Istari-PixelMagic - UIN 16353280 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://pixelmagic.dyndns.org/~cirdan/ Amiga user since '89, and damned proud of it too. - 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
At 7:45 PM + 11/9/01, Carl Troein wrote: >Shankar Unni writes: > >> What are the rules about "bundling" now? If we distribute a (standalone) >> copy of MySQL with our product, does that expose our product to the GPL? Or >> is it just like distributing a copy of Emacs with your OS? (I.e. as long as >> you make the source available, it doesn't automatically GPL the rest of >> your OS?) >> >> What if the product is designed to work with many databases, but we want to >> distribute MySQL only as a "default database" (i.e. it doesn't depend on >> MySQL for its functionality - it's merely a convenience)? Does that change >> the GPL liability on our product? >> >> Who can answer these questions? > >I believe the GPL FAQ tries to address these questions: >http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation > >Specifically, this may be of interest to you: >"By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are >communication mechanisms normally used between two separate >programs. So when they are used for communication, the >modules normally are separate programs." Compare that with this section of the manual: http://www.mysql.com/doc/U/s/Using_the_MySQL_server_under_a_commercial_license.html Which says: When you distribute a non-GPL application that ONLY works with the MySQL server and ships it with MySQL. This type of solution is actually considered to be linking even if it's done over a network. I believe that bit about "even if it's done over the network" was added sometime around last December. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, particularly in light of the paragraph from the GPL FAQ. > >//C > >-- > Carl Troein - CÌrdan / Istari-PixelMagic - UIN 16353280 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://pixelmagic.dyndns.org/~cirdan/ > Amiga user since '89, and damned proud of it too. - 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
%% Shankar Unni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: su> Who can answer these questions? Well, the obvious place to look is the MySQL web site, http://www.mysql.com Click "Products", then click "MySQL Licensing Policy". -- --- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist --- These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them. - 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
http://www.mysql.com/doc/G/R/GRANT.html
You need to GRANT 'emdtest.ncr.com' permission to connect or a user from
any box to connect with a user name and password.
mysql> GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON *.* TO kenneth@"%"
IDENTIFIED BY 'some_pass' WITH GRANT OPTION;
means kenneth can connect from box ("%") with a password. Remember you
need to Flush your new settings for them to take effect.
Read Learn Live
http://www.mysql.com/doc/A/d/Adding_users.html
>
> I get the error 'Host 'emdtest.ncr.com' is not allowd to connect to
> this MySQL database server'
>
> How do I correct this???
>
>
> -
> 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
Wells, Kenneth L writes: > I get the error 'Host 'emdtest.ncr.com' is not allowd to connect to this > MySQL database server' First of all, I must ask you why you've posted this under a thread about forking off MySQL. This makes little sense to me. Secondly, since you just posted the same question, did you really have to post it again? And finally, the answer you were waiting for: You haven't set up mysqld to accept connections from that host. You need to read the chapter in the manual about how to set up privileges using GRANT, and then turn your newfound knowledge into swift and merciless action. //C - always merciless, never swift. Or possibly the other way around. -- Carl Troein - Círdan / Istari-PixelMagic - UIN 16353280 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://pixelmagic.dyndns.org/~cirdan/ Amiga user since '89, and damned proud of it too. - 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
I get the error 'Host 'emdtest.ncr.com' is not allowd to connect to this MySQL database server' How do I correct this??? - 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
hi. regarding 'bundling' GPL products with commercial ones: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem to summarize, it's okay, if it's done properly. hth. -ravi. -Original Message- From: Shankar Unni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: November 9, 2001 2:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New fork of MySQL Steve Meyers wrote: > 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. Is it really, now? What are the rules about "bundling" now? If we distribute a (standalone) copy of MySQL with our product, does that expose our product to the GPL? Or is it just like distributing a copy of Emacs with your OS? (I.e. as long as you make the source available, it doesn't automatically GPL the rest of your OS?) What if the product is designed to work with many databases, but we want to distribute MySQL only as a "default database" (i.e. it doesn't depend on MySQL for its functionality - it's merely a convenience)? Does that change the GPL liability on our product? Who can answer these questions? -- Shankar. - 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
Shankar Unni writes: > What are the rules about "bundling" now? If we distribute a (standalone) > copy of MySQL with our product, does that expose our product to the GPL? Or > is it just like distributing a copy of Emacs with your OS? (I.e. as long as > you make the source available, it doesn't automatically GPL the rest of > your OS?) > > What if the product is designed to work with many databases, but we want to > distribute MySQL only as a "default database" (i.e. it doesn't depend on > MySQL for its functionality - it's merely a convenience)? Does that change > the GPL liability on our product? > > Who can answer these questions? I believe the GPL FAQ tries to address these questions: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation Specifically, this may be of interest to you: "By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs." //C -- Carl Troein - Círdan / Istari-PixelMagic - UIN 16353280 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://pixelmagic.dyndns.org/~cirdan/ Amiga user since '89, and damned proud of it too. - 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 Meyers wrote: > 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. Is it really, now? What are the rules about "bundling" now? If we distribute a (standalone) copy of MySQL with our product, does that expose our product to the GPL? Or is it just like distributing a copy of Emacs with your OS? (I.e. as long as you make the source available, it doesn't automatically GPL the rest of your OS?) What if the product is designed to work with many databases, but we want to distribute MySQL only as a "default database" (i.e. it doesn't depend on MySQL for its functionality - it's merely a convenience)? Does that change the GPL liability on our product? Who can answer these questions? -- Shankar. - 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
> >> 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. > Maybe you misinterpreted what he said -- I didn't read that as a personal attack. I think he was commenting on the MySQL developers, not you. > >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? > Some of the most common newie questions on this list have to do with subselects -- "even Access has subselects" :) > > > 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). > Some of the biggest complaints about MySQL's SQL non-compliance have to do with subselects and referential integrity. > 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 made since the > last major milestone. > > For me, I would have rather seen many issues towards further stability and > correctness, versus launching into other huge markets (embedded and > high-end servers). It is not like MySQL's market was any where near > saturated before 4.0. In fact, one of the rules in business is if > something is working then continue doing that thing. Don't break it. And > take incremental steps away from current success. > > There is no way you launch into new markets without having growing pains. > If you look at the historical record, you will see that MySQL kept on developing 3.22 until (and even a little beyond) when 3.23 was declared stable. Nobody pretends that 4.0 is stable yet, so I would imagine that active development will continue on 3.23 for some time. I'm sure the MySQL developers would appreciate your help in maintaining the current, stable 3.23 branch. I understand your concerns -- the company I used to work for took a long time to finally convert from 3.22 to 3.23. In fact, there are people on this mailing list still using 3.22. Perhaps you could contribute to the main 3.23 branch until 4.0 becomes stable, and then perhaps make a deal with MySQL to continue the active development on that branch for them. There are a lot of MySQL 3.23 users, and I would just like to see them all benefit from both your changes and the MySQL developers changes. Forking the code just makes that more difficult, as then a choice must be made as to which benefits you'd like to have. Anyway, as it's GPL'ed, you can pretty much do whatever you want, and my opinion is just one opinion among many, I'm sure! Good luck with whatever you do, but one way or another I hope we can all share the benefits of your changes. If you do fork, perhaps it would be appropriate to post announcements of new versions on this list? 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
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: 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
Re: New fork of MySQL
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
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
Re: New fork of MySQL
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
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
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
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
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
Re: New fork of MySQL
> 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. IMHO I think this would be best too, I know I would like both the newer/forthcoming features in the 4.x branch, but would also greatly appreciate any new features and stability that you or any other members of teh community could add. This is one of the greatest aspects of the Open Source Model. Not to disclude the ability to make your own fork, but in this case I really wouldn't see a need to keep any updates you make separate. -- Jayce^ - 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
> 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? > 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. > 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. > 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 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. > 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. 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
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
%% "DownloadFAST.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: dc> I have not read the MySQL license in detail. MySQL is under the straight GPL. -- --- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist --- These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them. - 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
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
