mysql viability (was: shells and bells)

[rpeterson at yellowbank.com (Ron Peterson)]

Niall Kavanagh wrote:
> 
> Okay, I'll do away with comparisons to sexual positions (a failed attempt
> at injecting some humor into our discussion).
> 
> Here's a better one. Linux does not have a journaling file system (oh,
> they exist, in development and AFAIK they don't come with any
> commericially support distros).
> 
> Does this mean that Linux is not suitable for some tasks? Certainly.
> 
> Does this mean that Linux should not be used for anything serious?
> Certainly not.
> 
> Does this mean that Linux is not a real operating system? Damn right it
> doesn't. ;)

Linux doesn't have a restrictive license.  MySQL does.

Why would you use a product with limited functionality, with a limiting
license, when a better (I like to speak in absolutes) product is
available without these limitations?

Because it's faster?  So what?  If your database is so huge and popular
that speed is an issue (it would have to be pretty damn big), I'm sure
you can afford to scale up your hardware.  Hardware is cheap.

MySQL doesn't have limitations because you can program around them?  You
can program around anything.  You could write your own operating system,
your own compiler, your own database engine, and your own web server. 
Why would you want to do this, unless you think you can do a better job
than someone who already has and is willing to share their work?  Tell
us about MySQL's performance, when you code all the cruft on top that
you'd need to support the features PostgreSQL has.

Either you say that PostgreSQL's features are unnecessary, which I
(absolutely) disagree with.  Or you say you can program around MySQL's
deficiencies.  In which case what's the point?

-Ron-
-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).