Return to the Press page

LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 24, 2012

A uTouch architecture introduction

LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 17, 2012

Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich

Highlights from the PostgreSQL 9.2 beta

Printable page

Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

Interview: MySQL rides open source wave into DBs (InfoWorld)

[Posted April 18, 2003 by ris]

InfoWorld has an interview with Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL. "MM: We are never on the bleeding edge, but we are fast movers. We hadn't spent millions on .Net thinking, but when we decided to get into it we immediately created a .Net interface and were the first non-Microsoft database to have that available. That's how we deal with any new technology. We take our time, but once we move, we move fast. XML will clearly be an important standard in the future and for us it is a tactical decision when to provide that functionality." (Thanks to Peter Link)

(Log in to post comments)

Not the first, just "one of"

Posted Apr 20, 2003 0:03 UTC (Sun) by ucntcme (guest, #10755) [Link]

First non-MS db with a ".Net interface"?

Funny, I though Python provided me that for nearly all databases. ;^)

Anyway, as I understand it .Net uses ODBC as well, meaning it could interface with *any* DB that has ODBC bindings. Surely, they are not assertign that only MySQL and MS SQL Server have ODBC?

This link http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/npgsql/projdisplay.php is just one .Net provider for PostgreSQL. Back in February, it was incorporated into Mono.

According to: http://www.go-mono.com/ado-net.html
Oracle, DB2, SQLLite, and Sybase interfaces are all also in Mono. Last I knew MS didn't own *any* of them.

Oh, and there is also: http://www.datadirect-technologies.com/products/dotnet/dotnetindex.asp
providing .Net for DB2, Oracle, Sybase, and MS SQL. All found with a few short googlings.

*sigh*, more inaccurate marketing hype, it seems. :(

Not the first, just "one of"

Posted Apr 21, 2003 10:42 UTC (Mon) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link]

So what are you saying? Are you claiming that MySQL was not in fact the first non-Microsoft database engine to get a .NET interface? Or are you claiming that, whether or not they were the first non-Microsoft database engine with a .NET interface, there are now many non-Microsoft database engines with .NET interfaces?

You seem to be saying the former, but most of your post seems merely to be making a case for the latter.

(No, I'm not a MySQL fanboy, I'm a PG fanboy in fact - it's just that your post isn't quite internally consistent.)

Interview: MySQL rides open source wave into DBs (InfoWorld)

Posted Apr 21, 2003 12:49 UTC (Mon) by leandro (subscriber, #1460) [Link]

> We are never on the bleeding edge, but we are fast movers.

The problem is to move fast to the wrong destination.

> We hadn't spent millions on .Net thinking, but when we decided to get into it we immediately created a .Net interface and were the first non-Microsoft database to have that available.

I supposed they are trying to be a quasi-SQL quasi-DBMS, and that they wanted to do that to store users' databases.

How trust a vendor who can't differentiate a DBMS from a database?

> That's how we deal with any new technology. We take our time, but once we move, we move fast. XML will clearly be an important standard in the future and for us it is a tactical decision when to provide that functionality.

Which functionality? XML is text markup, not a DB concept. What exactly they intend to support, and how?