Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

On Fri, May 19, 2006 13:25, Thomas Hallgren wrote:

> If that's really true, then let's create a bidirectional compatibility
> layer as a joint
> venture with people from the MySQL camp. Should be a win-win situation. I
> somehow doubt that
> is the case. Important yes. But "just as important"? No way.

I'm not too hopeful, for two reasons.  First: MySQL is very, very
different.  I heard they just introduced a "create user" command like
everybody else, but that's a drop in an ocean.  I'm sure it's
unintentional, but publishing a "quaint" SQL dialect amounts to a
vendor-lock-in scheme--this time with the barn being locked before the
cash cows have walked in.

Second: management changes at MySQL seem to have favoured conventional
business thinking over following the techs where no man has gone before. 
A year or two back we discussed porting libpqxx to MySQL so we'd have at
least a strong, common C++ layer.  Some of the technical people loved it,
a provisional team was sketched out, and the idea was pitched to
management.  The argument: the more stable interfaces we share, the more
confident corporate customers will feel adopting free databases.

It didn't go anywhere.  Reports I heard later amounted to "they don't see
why they should spend the money."


Jeroen