back to article Red Hat to ditch MySQL for MariaDB in RHEL 7

In a surprise move, Red Hat has announced that version 7 of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) will ship with the MariaDB database installed by default, in place of MySQL. The announcement was made at the company's Red Hat Summit, which wrapped up in Boston on Friday. MariaDB is a fork of MySQL that was launched in 2009 by …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Pint

    I dunno

    Why not make a real statement and use (for example) PostGreSQL instead?

    Each to his own, but it would have left a little more impression with me than simply going for the "best mysql compatible dba out there".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I dunno

      And why would you not go for the "best mysql compatible dba out there".

    2. Brad Ackerman
      Pint

      Re: I dunno

      RHEL does have PostgreSQL and has for some time; this change doesn't affect that.

    3. alain williams Silver badge

      Re: I dunno

      That is rather like saying "we won't ship Perl because we ship Python instead. They are both scripting languages and you can do much the same thing in either." But that does not help if youhave an application written in Perl.

      Similarly: there are many applications written to use Mysql so RedHat have to ship something that is Mysql compatible so that their uses can run them. Agreed: Postgresql might be better for a new project, but that is a different story.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I dunno

      More 'Open Source' fragmentation that no one cares about. Usage of this product is near zero outside of web hosting and internet companies....

      1. ratfox Silver badge

        Re: Usage of this product is near zero outside of web hosting and internet companies

        I think I remember people saying that about Linux too.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I dunno

      PostGreSQL, hmm yes - why not make my servers even more owned than they usually would be running Open source....

      Quite impressive to achieve a CVE level 10 vulnerability in a database: http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2013-1903

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I dunno

        Even more impressive to have 2 of them: http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2013-1902

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I dunno

          Not so impressive to have your DB server directly accessible from the Internet. Amateurs.

  2. Daniel B.

    PostgreSQL

    Agreed with ShelLuser: they should use PostgreSQL as the main DBMS. Monty is part of why I disliked MySQL and eventually turned back to PostgreSQL ... he hated transactions and thus made MyISAM and the early MySQL releases transactionless. Also, referential integrity was missing because of that.

    And well, MariaDB is headed by Monty. Using the transactional stuff requires InnoDB which is owned by ... Oracle. Oops!

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Linux

      Re: PostgreSQL

      Good decision, InnoDB went out the window years ago.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: PostgreSQL

      InnoDB has been GPL for some time as well as the default storage engine for some time, and MariaDB has already replaced MySQL on many other (uptodate) Linux distros

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: InnoDB

        and of course XtraDB is also provided in MariaDB as a fork of InnoDB

    3. Martijn Otto

      Re: PostgreSQL

      That is not entirely true. MariaDB comes with Aria, a transaction- and crash-safe engine which is completely open-source.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: PostgreSQL

      When I first reviewed MySQL as a potential db for a project, I was appalled. It lacked the most fundamental database capabilities, and the real important stuff like RI. I closed the book on MySQL when I discovered these things as well. MySQL was simply not a serious database.

      InnoDB came along later and added some transactional capability, but that was a commercial product you had to buy as an add-on IIRC. So a database system which needs transactional capabilities as an add-on WTF?!?!?

      Referential integrity was always lost on Monty. He is Swedish, so we can't expect too much.However I recommend you read the drivel in the MySQL manuals from V4 time-frame. Clearly written by someone clueless, a child with a hammer looking for nails, unaware that the screw and screwdriver have been invented!

      1. Joseph Haig
        WTF?

        Say, what?

        OK, I've heard strong opinions for and against MySQL that are well thought out and reasonable, but

        "He is Swedish, so we can't expect too much."

        Seriously?

      2. P. Lee Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: PostgreSQL

        > It lacked the most fundamental database capabilities, and the real important stuff like RI.

        It depends what you want it for. Perhaps RI isn't important because its used as a content cache. There are some places where speed and low resource requirements are more important than accuracy. UDP, JPG and MPEG4 don't fail as protocols because they are lossy.

        Just don't use it for your finance database!

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: PostgreSQL

          It depends what you want it for. Perhaps RI isn't important because its used as a content cache.

          Sure, but then it isn't a relational database but a datastore that supports SQL.

  3. Smoking Man
    Meh

    Satellite Server

    Strange enough, if you operate a Redhat Satellite Server, it solely relies on an Oracle Database; no MySQL, MariaDB, PostgreSQL or something.

    1. Rufus McDufus

      Re: Satellite Server

      You can use PostgreSQL if you like - it's a supported option.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Satellite Server

        No you can't - that's Spacewalk. RHSS requires an Oracle database.

    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Satellite Server

      There is no obligation to eat your own dogfood .... if you aren't usure about the F/OSS databases, shell out for Miracle Oracle.

      1. John Sanders
        Linux

        Re: Satellite Server

        Want to bet how long will the Oracle dependency last?

    3. cmp

      Re: Satellite Server

      Satellite was first released in 2001, long before Sun bought MySQL let alone the release of MariaDB, so its use of Oracle is a reflection on the state of open source databases 12 years ago. Back then both postgres and mysql were definitly not "enterprise ready" and Red Hat and Oracle were good buddys (it was long before OEL as well) so the choice of using the free (as in beer) edition of oracle seemed like a really good idea.

      Things have changed quite a lot since then!

      Support for Satellite on Postgres is in the works (Spacewalk already uses it), and I think you can be pretty sure the (rewritten from scratch) Satellite 6 will not have Oracle as an option...

  4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Go

    Long overdue.

    RH should have done this over a year ago. I suppose the wait was for support verification. Now, all they need next is an automated tool to migrate MariaDB instances to PostgreSQL instances and the job's done.....

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Long overdue.

      RH do not make major changes in their shipped products - ever.

      Changing to Maria was NOT an option when RH6 came out and as a result never will be.

      I get extremely frustrated with RH's software policies but they have them to keep the big clients happy. If you want agility use something else or import a 3rd party rpm.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Long overdue.

        Major changes bring in major bugs.

        The entire point of RH Linux is stability.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: Long overdue.

          The entire point of RH Linux is stability.

          Don't confuse stasis for stability. The entire point of RH Linux is reassurance: "don't worry if software X is no longer supported by the developers, we will continue to look after it for you…" . RedHat is like the Microsoft of Linux by promising extremely long support cycles for its software. While this doesn't work for me (I prefer the BSD approach of a stable OS and software ports) it obviously does work for a lot of CIOs. Long term the approach is similar to other vendors: dependency by deskilling.

  5. elreg subscriber
    Thumb Up

    another one bites the dust

    So what else is new?

    - Oracle takes over some open source project by some acquisition

    - Lawyers replace developers, threaten to sue for trademark violations etc.

    - Developers run away

    - Forks happen - in the case of MySQL: both MariaDB and PerconaDB

    - Everyone notices that the forks are better

    - Users switch to new forks - in this case notables are Wikipedia and now Red Hat

    - The Oracle version, encumbered by legalese, restrictive licences, plagued with security issues, terrible package management etc. descends into total irrelevance

    - Happiness ensues

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: elreg subscriber Re: another one bites the dust

      ".....- The Oracle version, encumbered by legalese, restrictive licences, plagued with security issues, terrible package management etc. descends into total irrelevance....." You missed out one part of it all:

      - Oracle's salesgrunts enjoy the fractured nature of the My SQL base, allowing them FUD MySQL and forks, to sell more Oracle DB licenses and enjoy the problems caused to what was a competitor product, the real reason behind the Oracle purchase of MySQL.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: elreg subscriber another one bites the dust

        Well... technically, MySQL was bought by Sun at the price of "1 Instagram" before .... the unnamable¹ involving a monstrous presence from Redwood occurred.

        [1] ...My constant talk about 'unnamable' and 'unmentionable' things was a very puerile device, quite in keeping with my lowly standing as an author. I was too fond of ending my stories with sights or sounds which paralysed my heroes’ faculties and left them without courage, words, or associations to tell what they had experienced. (H.P. Lovecraft, speaking as "Randolph Carter")

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: elreg subscriber another one bites the dust

        "the real reason behind the Oracle purchase of MySQL."

        I see "Matt the Moron" (tm) is at work today.

        Oracle did not buy MySQL. They bought Sun Microsystems for quite a considerable sum of money. In the purchased package of assets, was all sorts of detritus, some of it useful and some of it useless.

        MySQL was part of the purchase, it was not THE purchase.

        Dweeb

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: another one bites the dust

      And Oracle succeed in removing an Open Source product from contending with their own DB, by fragmenting it into irrelevance.....

      Meanwhile Microsoft SQL Server continues to grow market share.....

    3. xpusostomos

      Re: another one bites the dust

      You forgot the part where Oracle eventually has to purchase MariaDB, rinse, repeat, start again.

  6. This post has been deleted by its author

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Transparency and maintainability

    Another reason which may have motivated RH to switch away from MySQL is the lack of transparency and openness from Oracle: maintaining old versions has become very difficult because Oracle only maintains the HEAD (where vulnerability fixes are drowned with all the new features, which makes it almost impossible for a third-party to isolate the fixes) and doesn't communicate the individual patches.

    MySQL may still have, technically, an "open-source" core but this means nothing any more because of the closed project management model Oracle uses. For all intents and purposes it's the same as closed-source software now.

    When, last year, a Debian security upgrade had to ship a new upstream version (even though it introduced functional changes, which is normally a no-no for Debian) instead of just backporting, as usual, the fixes to the stable version, then you knew something terribly wrong was happening.

    1. A J Stiles

      Re: Transparency and maintainability

      I'm a bit surprised that Debian haven't already switched to MariaDB; but then again, they were slow adopting XOrg instead of XFree86, most probably because that was how long it took to test everything still worked. Maybe MariaDB will make it into Jessie + 1 .....

  8. K Silver badge

    Long overdue

    For to long MySQL has been a drag on Open Source DB development, even before Sun brought it the development and release cycle was way to slow.

    But I do disagree with the call for Postgre, reason being I'm sure MySQL has far larger user base that Postgre (that is a personal assumption) and I'm fairly certain Redhat would not want to alienate all those lucrative customers.

    Another point that nobody has mentioned, is a couple of years ago Oracle tried to stick it to Redhat by effectively forking the Redhat packages and even offering to sell support for Redhat Enterprise at a cheaper price. Though I doubt this would be a motivator for Redhat to finally show the middle finger ;)

    1. Storage_Person

      Re: Long overdue

      Moving from any MySQL-based database to PostgreSQL as a default would be good for everyone. PostgreSQL is both awesome in terms of features and an actual real database built on actual real database principles. The more people that use it for their bigger/more important projects the better.

      For the smaller just-need-a-structured-datastore needs just use SQLite.

      1. K Silver badge

        Re: Long overdue

        @SP - What exactly is it that makes Postgre a more "real" database than MySQL and any of its variants?

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Paris Hilton

          Re: Long overdue

          People ain't quite sure about that:

          http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/MySQL_vs_PostgreSQL

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Long overdue

          Postgresql is not named after characters in the Moomin books (Yes, I know they are the misses Widenius as well). That makes it more serious. Doesn't it?

  9. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    Three-way split

    There really isn't much to see here: RHEL is a commercial offering with companies apparently happy to pay RedHat to support software versions ad infinitum; Oracle is pushing ahead with improvements to MySQL (5.6 really does look to be getting quite usable) and happy to favour paying customers over "freeloaders". Both are pursuing vertical integration strategies.

    Postgres is filling the niche of a full-fledged RDBMS with no strings attached, with commercial support for those who want it: Enterprise DB has a nice model for companies wanting to get off Oracle and 2nd Quadrant has just announced "platinum" support.

    I must admit I've never really understood the value proposition of MyASM beyond its apparent ubiquity and some niche use cases, where speed is valued over integrity at all costs. The ubiquity lowers the barriers to entry for newbies but at the cost of encouraging poor design practices.

    1. Chris_Maresca

      One unique feature

      of MyISAM tables is the MERGE table definition. It allows you to merge two tables, even if they are in different databases, so that they look like one table to anything querying the DB. Kinda like a view, but the difference is that you can then specify which table is writeable and all writes will go to that table only.

      This can come in very, very handy if you have to do something like have common data in several DBs but can't change the application. I don't know of any way to easily do this in other DBs, although there are some things which come close.

      It does have some limitations, like the tables having to be exactly the same and you need to make sure to avoid key collisions. But when your use case calls for something like MERGE, it's a good solution.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: One unique feature

        Thanks for the info, I didn't know about it. I'm sure you'll agree it's not a terribly common requirement and not the sort of thing that beginners should be confronted with, unless they pick it up as a practice and start designing for it!

  10. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Oracle bad will

      Sun's "opensource" is usually CDDL, which is legally incompatible with GPL (deliberately so).

      This makes it difficult to incorporate things into a single distribution. (There are workarounds, but they're fiddly)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oracle bad will

      It was great news for Microsoft though - SQL server revenue grew 16% just last year alone...It now has a well estabished and proven lower TCO than any other enterprise ready choice.....

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oracle alienated open source developers and users alike, and pretty much messed up any open source they acquired or released. At the same time they blatantly fork other open source (can't blame them, GPL allows it), for example RHEL, which became the costly Oracle Linux. Stuff which they previously provided as open source suddenly is no longer supported on other Linux platforms (e.g. OCFS2, which will in not available for RHEL 6, but was for 5.x where they still deliver patches).

    Java didn't exactly shine, and I doubt all the holes came from Sun's code. MySQL becomes less usable unless you have too much money to spend; hence forks like MariaDB and Percona gain traction.

    Then there was the massacre around OpenSolaris. I'm glad to see that IllumOS, Omni, OpenIndiana, SmartOS and others build on solid SunOS roots and take it from there.

    You used to see Oracle developers contributing to many open source projects, but that's becoming less common these days from what I've seen in changelogs (I may be wrong, though).

    You get the feeling that Oracle got involved (and acquired) open source *because* they wanted it dead. Not surprising, but still far from nice. (On a side note: many ex Sun developers are working for Oracle's competitors these days.)

    I doubt that it drives people to buying Oracle licenses for anything. Rather the opposite. People increasingly often double-check whether or not Oracle is involved with something they'd like to use, and if that's the case, they look for other options.

    Mismanagement, as Eadon put it, is indeed what it looks like. In the grand scheme of things and the long-term anyway. It was a short-sighted attempt to remove competition. But Oracle doesn't have enough money to buy all competition now and in the future. I hope. Plus, they underestimated the open source community. They tried hard to kill OpenSolaris, to go back to that example, but it didn't keep excellent developers from carrying on.

    I'm waiting for the day where Java becomes proprietary and starts to cost money. Oh well, maybe it would have been already if it wasn't full of holes, which is hard to sell at typical Oracle rates.

    1. TheVogon Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Have you seen how many holes Oracle's other products have?

      As per Secunia.org -

      Oracle 10g - 998 vulnerabilties.

      SQL Server 2008 - 4 vulnerabilities.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        My garden hose has 1 leak

        Thames water has 1000 leaks

        My hose is the better system.

        1. BatmanOfLinux

          Well said.. I like this very much

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Except this is like Thames Water has 1,000 Leaks, Southern Water has 4 leaks....

          Or are you seriously trying to suggest that Oracle DB is so bloated that it has 250 times the codebase of SQL server?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Irrelevant != dead

      A product doesn't have to be "killed", it merely has to be made irrelevant by any one of several means.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ergh

    Well goodbye RHEL then! Don't want anything touched by Monty, thanks

  13. QdK
    WTF?

    From wikipedia:

    "Due to selling MySQL to Sun, Widenius earned about €16.6 million in capital gains in 2008 (€16.8 million total income), making the top 10 of highest earners in Finland that year."

    So the guy sold the project he founded to SUN, then went screaming that his project wasn't free anymore.. So he created MariaDB, and somehow his project is gaining traction again. Wow. Wonder when he's going to sell MariaDB for another fortune to some company. And forking the project once more. Wish I thought of such a low act. Keep championing that guy, open source, I'm sure you'll get all the coorporate appreciation you deserve :/

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Linux

      Re: QdK

      ".....Wonder when he's going to sell MariaDB for another fortune to some company....." LOL, don't knock it, it sounds like a great money-making scheme - create OSS competitor to over-priced proprietary software product, generate media interest, sign up the leading Linux supplier, sit back and wait for the proprietary software vendor to send someone round with a fat cheque. Take a few months off then rinse and repeat. Brilliant!

    2. P. Lee Silver badge
      Facepalm

      > So the guy sold the project ... then went screaming that his project wasn't free anymore

      > So you think the Oracle bought a company pushing GPL'ed code and then have a right to complain about forks?

      Oracle know exactly what they were doing. They destroyed the product underneath the MySQL name to reduce the profile of a well-known free product which was in competition (in a small way) with their profit-making system.

      Oracle stripped down the core functionality that you would expect in a db and put the functionality into a separate non-GPL product, rendering the core product free but useless.

      1. QdK

        Re: > So the guy sold the project ... then went screaming that his project wasn't free anymore

        Regardless of who bought the project (did I mention Oracle? Nope I didn't), it is a low act on Monty's part. Open source has their mouths full of how companies (at which the open sourcers work, surprisingly) aren't trustworthy. Open source, by these kinds of actions, isn't much better...

    3. Vic

      > Wonder when he's going to sell MariaDB for another fortune to some company

      He won't. He can't.

      When he sold MySQL to Sun, he owned the copyrights. That's what he sold.

      Those copyrights - or at least the bulk of them - now belong to Oracle. If they get sold, it won't be Widenius getting the cash...

      Vic.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    PostgreSQL - me, me, me, me...

    The PostgreSQL Postees on this forum really do have a Small Penis Syndrome

    Seriously, get a f******* life, the subject is about MariaDB and MySQL, nobody reading this gives a toss about your opinions on databases or Swedish People

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: PostgreSQL - me, me, me, me...

      "Swedish People"

      The tongue in cheek jibe at Swedes would be easily recognized for what it is, for anyone who lives in Scandinavia, and most Europeans. It was a mistake to assume the readership had the cultural background to recognise the cheekiness of the comment.

      For the record, I am not in any way a Postgress booster, but it is streets ahead of MySQL where it counts.

      MS-DOS was faster than unix because it was unencumbered by the task having to be an operating system

      MySQL is faster than Postgress (choose target real dbms) because it is unencumbered by by the task having to be a DBMS

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: PostgreSQL - me, me, me, me...

        And SQL Server is faster than all of them:

        http://devtoolshed.com/content/performance-benchmarks-odbc-vs-oracle-mysql-sql-server-net-providers

  15. Miek
    Linux

    "In a surprise move, Red Hat has announced that version 7 of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) will ship with the MariaDB database installed by default, in place of MySQL." -- A surprise? Oracle's management of it's products is dire. Java sucks, Open Office sucks and most MySQL users have been nervously planning to jump ship from MySQL for some time. Looks like Red Hat are giving the finger to Oracle, a move which will have a massive knock on effect for uptake of Maria. Here is the start of the cascade (although you will likely still be able to install MySQL if you really need it to be MySQL)

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019