From helpmysql.org (emphasis mine):
If those IPRs fall into the hands of MySQL's primary competitor, then MySQL immediately ceases to be an alternative to Oracle's own high-priced products. So far, customers had the choice to use MySQL in new projects instead of Oracle's products. Some large companies even migrated (switched) from Oracle to MySQL for existing software solutions. And every one could credibly threaten Oracle's salespeople with using MySQL unless a major discount was granted. If Oracle owns MySQL, it will only laugh when customers try this. Getting rid of this problem is easily worth one billion dollars a year to Oracle, if not more.
Is Oracle really MySQL's primary competitor? I thought they represent two very distinct segments?
Also, if Oracle owns MySQL, why can't I still threaten Oracle sales reps to use MySQL to get a deep discount on Oracle DB? Because Oracle will threaten to kill MySQL, or sue every other company that provides paid support for MySQL, or deliberately delay fixing critical bugs in MySQL? I'm really not convinced with this argument. In any case MySQL would still be a cheaper substitute for Oracle. And I were an Oracle client wanting to get a discount (and not laughs), I think I would rather threaten to switch to SQL Server or Postgres instead.
Also, online petition immediately conjures up the image of a teenager trying to save his/her favorite cartoon TV show that is being cancelled.
Also, let's never forget the bigger "politics" before this, regarding the position of MySQL AB on the usefulness of things like transactions or foreign key constraints, depending on whether its product has support for them.
Let's take one particular example with foreign key constraints. It shows that you really can't trust the opinion of people with ulterior motives. Here's a snippet from the old MySQL 3.23.x manual, when MySQL has no support for foreign key checking (emphasis mine):
126.96.36.199 Reasons NOT to Use Foreign Keys constraints
There are so many problems with foreign key constraints that we don't know where to start:
- Foreign key constraints make life very complicated, because the foreign key definitions must be stored in a database and implementing them would destroy the whole ``nice approach'' of using files that can be moved, copied, and removed.
- The speed impact is terrible for INSERT and UPDATE statements, and in this case almost all FOREIGN KEY constraint checks are useless because you usually insert records in the right tables in the right order, anyway.
- There is also a need to hold locks on many more tables when updating one table, because the side effects can cascade through the entire database. It's MUCH faster to delete records from one table first and subsequently delete them from the other tables.
- You can no longer restore a table by doing a full delete from the table and then restoring all records (from a new source or from a backup).
- If you use foreign key constraints you can't dump and restore tables unless you do so in a very specific order.
- It's very easy to do ``allowed'' circular definitions that make the tables impossible to re-create each table with a single create statement, even if the definition works and is usable.
- It's very easy to overlook FOREIGN KEY ... ON DELETE rules when one codes an application. It's not unusual that one loses a lot of important information just because a wrong or misused ON DELETE rule.
The only nice aspect of FOREIGN KEY is that it gives ODBC and some other client programs the ability to see how a table is connected and to use this to show connection diagrams and to help in building applicatons.
And here's a snippet from MySQL 5.1 manual, when, through InnoDB, MySQL now has support for foreign keys. Notice the complete change of heart (emphasis mine):
188.8.131.52. Foreign Keys
The InnoDB storage engine supports checking of foreign key constraints, including CASCADE, ON DELETE, and ON UPDATE. See Section 184.108.40.206, “FOREIGN KEY Constraints”.
Foreign key enforcement offers several benefits to database developers:
- Assuming proper design of the relationships, foreign key constraints make it more difficult for a programmer to introduce an inconsistency into the database.
- Centralized checking of constraints by the database server makes it unnecessary to perform these checks on the application side. This eliminates the possibility that different applications may not all check the constraints in the same way.
- Using cascading updates and deletes can simplify the application code.
- Properly designed foreign key rules aid in documenting relationships between tables.
Do keep in mind that these benefits come at the cost of additional overhead for the database server to perform the necessary checks. Additional checking by the server affects performance, which for some applications may be sufficiently undesirable as to be avoided if possible. (Some major commercial applications have coded the foreign key logic at the application level for this reason.)
Be aware that the use of foreign keys can sometimes lead to problems:
This either means MySQL AB deliberately added misleading opinion about foreign key constraints, or MySQL AB grew up and saw the benefits of foreign key constraints during the later days of 3.23/4.x. Either way doesn't bode well on MySQL.
But anyway, I guess all of these so-called "politics" exist in any product advocacy. No product can support all possible features, so unsupported features sometimes get downplayed, either deliberately or innocently. Since Perl subscribes to the multiparadigm and TIMTOWTDI thinking, we suffer less from these. But haven't we all heard more than a handful of otherwise brilliant Perl programmers casting aside things like block indentation or even OOP as overrated, just because other languages support these features (better) than us?