Comments on: MySQL Taking A Bad Turn?

By: Robert Treat

Robert Treat — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:32:13 +0000

1: The difference is that PostgreSQL “the project” has no such relationship with SCO. Unlike my$ql, where the community, code and company are all one and the same, EnterpriseDB is just one of many software companies who use PostgreSQL as the basis for thier own commercial software, and it is they who have made the deal with SCO. (A good collorary to this would be to say that BSD is now a partner of Microsoft, just becuase Apple has a partnered up with them, it just doesnt make sense). Now, say what you want about EnterpriseDB… they make commercial software and target commercial enteprises, and they are brand spankin new and need deals like these, unlike my$ql who certainly doesn’t need a sco partnership to help with it’s survival.

2: I think this is wrong on two fronts. The first is that part of product quality is having the freedoms that open source attempts to secure for you. I try to avoid commercial software when I can specifically becuase of things like vendor lockin and overhead of $/time involved in license management, but this isn’t a software issue. I try to avoid consumer products that have low up front costs in an effort to lock you into recurring costs from parts… like appliances that require proprietary battery packs or a toothbrush that requires special tooth paste. But even beyond that, now more than ever it is important for consumers to avoid companies that support ideas that they are against. Simple examples include avoiding make-up companies that support animal testing or maybe avoiding software companies that use monopolistic business practices :-) There is no sense in pumping money into companies that are activly working against consumers, and companies that partner up with them should be given a critical eye as well, so that if there is a comprable alternative you can switch to it.

By: Robert Treat

Robert Treat — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:32:00 +0000

1: The difference is that PostgreSQL “the project” has no such relationship with SCO. Unlike my$ql, where the community, code and company are all one and the same, EnterpriseDB is just one of many software companies who use PostgreSQL as the basis for thier own commercial software, and it is they who have made the deal with SCO. (A good collorary to this would be to say that BSD is now a partner of Microsoft, just becuase Apple has a partnered up with them, it just doesnt make sense). Now, say what you want about EnterpriseDB… they make commercial software and target commercial enteprises, and they are brand spankin new and need deals like these, unlike my$ql who certainly doesn’t need a sco partnership to help with it’s survival.

2: I think this is wrong on two fronts. The first is that part of product quality is having the freedoms that open source attempts to secure for you. I try to avoid commercial software when I can specifically becuase of things like vendor lockin and overhead of $/time involved in license management, but this isn’t a software issue. I try to avoid consumer products that have low up front costs in an effort to lock you into recurring costs from parts… like appliances that require proprietary battery packs or a toothbrush that requires special tooth paste. But even beyond that, now more than ever it is important for consumers to avoid companies that support ideas that they are against. Simple examples include avoiding make-up companies that support animal testing or maybe avoiding software companies that use monopolistic business practices :-) There is no sense in pumping money into companies that are activly working against consumers, and companies that partner up with them should be given a critical eye as well, so that if there is a comprable alternative you can switch to it.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:01:25 +0000

So does the product quality suck now?

Sometimes if a product is good, you may have to bend your way of thinking. The "That's Micro$loth/SCO/Hewlett Packard! IT SUCKS!" way of thinking is going out of style.

I've always been a fan of GNU/Linux, but I use Microsoft products all the time (Windows XP/200 at work and home, MS .NET for coding projects, MS Outlook for email at work) for one of two reasons: 1) it's the best product for the job, or 2) it's a professional tool we use in my department/place of work.

While unstable or horribly designed products should be avoided at all possible costs, we should learn to look at software for what it is, not what it stands for. A true geek wouldn't use a magnet on his hard drive because he didn't personally write a text editor or IDE.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:01:00 +0000

So does the product quality suck now?

Sometimes if a product is good, you may have to bend your way of thinking. The "That's Micro$loth/SCO/Hewlett Packard! IT SUCKS!" way of thinking is going out of style.

By: Nerd

Nerd — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 04:37:48 +0000

Bad news, PostgreSQL have the same relationship.

What is the difference between the SCO-MySQL deal and the SCO-PostgreSQL/EnterpriseDB deal?

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1846635,00.asp

They were both announced at the same time. They are both doing the same thing (providing certified binaries to run on SCO).