Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Databases Oracle Apple

Apple Removes MySQL From Lion Server 303

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the well-isn't-that-interesting dept.
sfcrazy also noticed that Apple has officially removed MySQL from Lion Server, opting instead to include PostgreSQL, albeit in command line only form. The article speculates that the change is because MySQL is now Oracle property, and Apple is concerned about IP issues following all the legal issues surrounding Java.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Removes MySQL From Lion Server

Comments Filter:
  • Much better anyway (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anrego (830717) * on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @08:56AM (#36971152)

    I just wish it was a little more user friendly. That was the one thing MySQL had going for it.. dead simple to use and admin.. and I imagine Apple's frontend probably made it even more so. Postgres isn’t as bad as oracle (by a long shot) but it certainly requires a little background reading to use. MySQL you can pretty much throw on a box and start using right away. This made it insanely newbie friendly (and cheap webhost admin friendly) and is probably the reason it became so prevalent.

    For the record I’m no fan of Apple and I think using apple as a server is insane but I actually agree with Apple on this one.

    • Postgres isnâ(TM)t as bad as oracle (by a long shot)...

      Talk about "damning with faint praise"!

      • by Alex Belits (437) *

        Moar liek praising with faint criticism. Oracle has many flaws but its manageability is reasonably tied to the complexity of setup being managed.

    • by suso (153703) *

      I agree. Been using PostgreSQL since 2004 and only occasionally use MySQL. I could see the writing on the wall when the mysql.com site kept moving the link for their documentation around, making it harder to find. My gripe about PostgreSQL is the same, its harder to admin, especially in a shared hosting environment.

      • by amorsen (7485) <benny+slashdot@amorsen.dk> on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @09:12AM (#36971362)

        I keep hearing that Postgres is hard to admin. Yet Postgres integrates with the normal Unix user accounts so I don't have to worry about users and passwords, it uses sockets by default so I don't have to worry about networking (unless the SQL server is remote), it provides sane semantics without having to worry about table types...

        I like SHOW CREATE TABLE from MySQL and the \-commands could use some aliases, but other than that Postgres is rather nice to admin and use.

        • by Anrego (830717) *

          I wouldn't say hard (oracle is hard!) .. just harder.

          I agree once you get it up and running (and in my case, write a few wrapper scripts) .. postgres is not any more difficult than MySQL. And it's nicer to use for sure (I like being able to rely on transactions).

          It's more that there is that initial learning curve which drives newbies away.

          • by w_dragon (1802458)
            What issues do you have with MySQL's transaction implementation, assuming you're using innodb tables?
            • by PhrstBrn (751463)

              aid is a reference to a.id
              bid is a reference to b.id

              START TRANSACTION;
              INSERT INTO a (id, bid) VALUES(1,2);
              INSERT INTO b (id, aid) VALUES(2,1);
              COMMIT;

              Doesn't work.

        • by vlm (69642)

          Yet Postgres integrates with the normal Unix user accounts so I don't have to worry about users and passwords

          You can also Kerberos Postgres, but not mysql... That will eventually be the death of mysql on my systems. "when I get around to it" I'm going to kerberized postgres.

        • by Splab (574204)

          So if your setup is using the build in logins and not using remote connects, then yes, pgsql is damned easy to set up.

          But for those of us who wants to use usernames/passwords and groups to handle login it's a tad annoying to set up. (To be fair, it's by no means impossible, just annoying - it has some quirks that you need to man your way around).

      • I've been using PostgreSQL since about 2001, on and off, including administrating a network with a small server that gave about 100 people web hosting with a PostreSQL database. I never understood the 'harder to admin' thing. For each user, you need to run createuser. You then need to run createdb for each db. I'm not sure how much simpler it could be.
    • For the record I’m no fan of Apple and I think using apple as a server is insane but I actually agree with Apple on this one.

      I think there are many that have been using mac minis as SOHO servers for businesses and that's why Apple offers a server version of that hardware. I do know that some colocation companies have used them because their small form factor made it possible to pack them densely.

    • postgres also supports geospatial operations, in case you happen to be in that sort of work and don't want to pay silly license fees to people like ESRI.
    • by macshome (818789)
      Apple never provided a front end for the MySQL that they used to ship on Mac OS X Server. All it included was a tool to start or stop the DB and to set the MySQL root password.
    • by erroneus (253617)

      No doubt. Anything with the Oracle logo I tend to want to back away from. That said, I like Virtualbox and I will be sad when Oracle finally pulls some stunt where I will have to quit using it and return to pirating VMWare Workstation -- I really don't like VMWare Workstation any longer -- just not as easy to use as VBox. (There was a time when VMWS was easier than VBox, but VBox matured greatly with Sun at the helm... fortunately, there is an OSE but it doesn't have the USB support as far as I know... o

      • I am using the OSX version of VMWare, and believe me it is easier to use than VBox.
        VMWare Fusion that is.

    • Is it though? Why would you buy an Apple server for open source software that you could install yourself?

      • Makes sense for home or small business use especially for all-Apple shops. Apple's big on using open source where it makes sense (and where the license is compatible), it permeates OSX.

        • by improfane (855034)

          You pay an awful lot for that privilege.

          • You pay an awful lot for that privilege.

            Based on what? TCO? Features vs. Cost? Beige Box vs. Brand Name? Please enlighten me.

          • A mac mini is pretty cheap, easy to hide away and has low power consumption. I never had one die on me either.
            Lion server is only $49.99 (plus $29 if you need to upgrade to Lion first.) That's very reasonably priced in my book. I think it might be actually less than I paid for a SuSE boxed set I bought back in the day.

      • by wkcole (644783)
        Integration and maintenance effort.
      • One reason would be ease of backup. If you buy a 2TB Time Capsule as well then you have automatic backup and non-technical user can trivially find and restore old versions of files that they accidentally deleted from the file server. If your server dies, you can just plug a new one into the network and restore from the Time Capsule. This stuff is relatively easy to set up with *NIX if you know what you're doing, but if you're a small business then spending £1000 on a couple of Mac Minis and Time Ca
  • SAMBA (Windows file sharing) in no longer included with OS X Server. This is a mixed blessing, as the version of SAMBA that Apple included was very old--and had a number of bugs and vulnerabilities, but it did make it eash to use the Mac as an sever in a PC environment. Although, I never used the frontend others report that Apple put a slick GUI on SAMBA to make it easier to use.

    Instead of supporting SAMBA, Apple is going there own way with a competitive solution. I don't know what license Apple is using f

    • by Henriok (6762) on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @09:08AM (#36971292)
      Apple stopped using SAMBA after SAMBA moved to GPL3 and Apple don't want to use such a license.
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Last time I looked, there are no pre-built SAMBA downloads for the Mac. Perhaps someone will chime in if this is because no one wants one or it is hard to do.

      Using the internets? You fail it. [finkproject.org]

      P.S. I haven't even touched OSX in years...

    • by pieterh (196118) on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @09:15AM (#36971410) Homepage

      Yes, the reason here seems to be GPL-related, and nothing to do with Oracle and Java. Postgresql uses an MIT/X11 style license. MySQL is GPL. This is a trend at Apple.

      The reason, ironically, is probably the GPLv3's anti-patent clauses. My hypothesis is that Apple's lawyers have picked up on this and it's now company policy to avoid GPLv3 software in their stack, at any cost.

      • GPL3 is in response to companies that found a way to make money and secure a market using GPL2 technology. I would have been happier if GPL3 stated that if you put your patented code in a GPL program you are agreeing to allow you patent free and unencumbered use in all GNU/GNU Compatible code.

      • There's also a big security push in Lion with encryption, sandboxing, etc. Since there seems to a consensus that Postgresql is more secure that might also be part of it.

    • You can get pre-built binaries of virtually every OSS server software for MacOS, and certainly for every remotely popular OSS server software. Fink [finkproject.org] is good, and I like it because I've used it a lot over the years. MacPorts [macports.org] seems to be more popular these days though. Since OSX is essentially just a POSIX compliant Unix variant with a fancy GUI, ports are extremely trivial to make. I will warn you that X-windows based software from these sources are a bit flaky sometimes, mostly becasue Apple's X overlay f

  • by cryfreedomlove (929828) on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @09:04AM (#36971244)
    Why pay Mac premiums for a server? Macs are great for carrying around (my preference) but I'm not sure why I'd put one in a rack.
    • by vlm (69642)

      Why pay Mac premiums for a server? Macs are great for carrying around (my preference) but I'm not sure why I'd put one in a rack.

      The capex is pocket change compared to the labor expense, unless you're doing something absolutely huge or crazy. The "mac premium" is somewhere between one days salary for me, and one days consulting fee. Its to the point where "how quickly you can unpack the shipping box" is a major portion of the labor expense differential between apple vs PC.

      I assume the local apple store provides fantastic support to server buyers just as they do for everyone else; for a small business owner this is vital.

      • Didnt apple stop selling the x-serve though? The only option for a (new) server running OS-X would be either minis or mac-pro's (only an idiot would be something with an expensive integrated screen for a server), both of which are consumer hardware and miss features which are pretty much a must once you get into serious server stuff.

        a mini/mac pro as a fileserver for a small business might not be bonkers, but beyond SOHO use, why would anyone bother with a mac server?

        • I think Apple stop making the XServe for practicality. Businesses that wanted rack-mounted hardware were getting them from Dell, HP, and IBM. Businesses that needed SOHO servers would be fine with a MacPro or Mac mini. So rather than continue to make a product few wanted, they tweaked it to where they could have far more sales.
          • The XServe never had a business case, it existed just because Steve wanted Pixar to be an Apple-only company. Now that Pixar is owned by Disney, this is less of an issue. It was just a marketing tool so that people couldn't say that even Steve Jobs has to use non-Mac systems.
            • There is a business case for XServe, it's just the demand for them was small and Apple didn't feel the need to keep the product going. I think the origin was Virginia Tech's Big Mac supercomputer. In their first iteration, they used Power Macs but wanted rack mounted servers. In the second iteration, they got XServes. Over time though customers who wanted the high density were getting blades instead and SOHO customers didn't want rack mounted.

              As for Pixar, to my knowledge, they have always used Linux fa

          • by rrossman2 (844318)

            They're used at Penn State fairly heavily, and I know so for the Education College. There's a lot of Macs used both by employees in the Education College, as well as by students, and the XServes are used in a rack to host the stuff for the Mac systems (using for example OpenDirectory pushing stuff from the Active DIrectory windows servers, as well as for DeployStudio and other uses)

        • Minis can be densely packed in a rack, making them pretty popular for some types of HPC applications and such. A few years ago, when I still had my hands a bit deeper into the HPC and simulation areas of computation I was also starting to see people use them for video clusters. I've been out of that game for a few years though (2008 was my last Supercomputing), so I dunno how any of that worked out or if it's still common.

        • Exactly. Apple's looking at serving the small-business and home server market, not the enterprise. They aren't pretending otherwise. Of course you aren't going to put a bunch of Apple-branded servers in your data-center as the center of your multi-national enterprise. You may, however, put one on the shelf in your real-estate office, or a closet at your catering business.

          It's the 21st century. There's school-kids putting up servers for their scout troops, and servers in flower-shops, and print-shops. That's

        • by Cronock (1709244)
          a mini/mac pro as a fileserver for a small business might not be bonkers, but beyond SOHO use, why would anyone bother with a mac server? OTA iOS device management? Golden-triangle support for mac management in an enterprise? Wiki Server? But you do realize your saying "but beyond it's primary purpose, why would anyone want it?". SOHO is currently their target market for the mini server. It really makes for an awesome server for somebody like me who's self employed and using it for web, email/webmail, cal
      • by jedidiah (1196)

        Wasting money is still wasting money, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

        Trivializing money is a mentality that just doesn't end well.

        • Wasting money is still wasting money, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

          Trivializing money is a mentality that just doesn't end well.

          If the use of Lion Server saves time for an expensive employee or contractor, then it's not trivializing money and instead is making the smart financial choice. This is the point the GP was making.

    • by Haedrian (1676506)

      Because management thinks that they're cool.

    • by seebs (15766)

      I've been running OS X Server for a couple of years now. Got a Mini, put Server on it, and the time it's saved me compared to doing my own admin on more conventional systems has totally been worth it. I like it.

      • by Cronock (1709244)
        Not to mention how much you save in licensing costs! If you've ever looked into licensing prices for windows servers, a few user licenses cost more than a Mac Mini with unlimited clients.
    • by Henriok (6762)
      As a Office with about 100 Macs a Mac server is a good and cheap way of getting many services. One neat feature is Spotlight as we have millions of files across 6 TB of data, that is automatically indexed and reachable within seconds. File Sharing, IM, print, VPN, DNS, Directory Services, NetBoot, NetRestore, Package deployment, Software Update server, Calendaring server, Address book server, iOS device management, roaming profiles, wiki, mail. We use it all, and its only 50 bucks. If you value your time,
    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      The premium isn't that high for a SOHO setup.
      If you are a MAC office and you want a server a mac mini server is $999 You get a quad core i7 4GB of ram and two 500 GB drives in a RAID. Yes you could build the same thing for about half the price and put freenas on it but that isn't cost effective for everyone.
      The Apple server will be easy to configure, it has some pretty good software services right out the box, it will be small, silent, and will work really well with Macs right out of the box.
      If you have a M

  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @09:04AM (#36971248)
    To be clear, MySQL can be installed on Lion; it's just no longer installed by default.
  • "The article speculates that the change is because MySQL is now Oracle property, and Apple is concerned about IP issues following all the legal issues surrounding Java"

    Okay, but isn't MySQL open source? Are they bothered that Oracle might bring forth a patent war against them? Surely Apple need only point out that these things have existed in MySQL for years before Oracle acquired it..?

    Also, couldn't Apple simply say they are supply an open source database for free with the server and therefore get away w

    • by TheSHAD0W (258774)

      The Java engine was supposed to be open-source, too.

    • If it's true I'm thinking Apple is trying to avoid any conflicts with Oracle. Yes, the user can install MySQL after they buy an Apple, but since Apple doesn't install it for them they don't have to deal with any of Oracle's demands on them in terms of licensing, etc.
    • I'm starting to get really bugged by the number of patent wars flaring up right now. It's like watching a load of spoilt children fighting in a playground about who gets to go on the swings first...

      And I'm LOVING it. While the average Slashdot reader is more than familiar with how thoroughly fucked-up the American patent system (and IP law in general) is, the average Joe hasn't a clue as to how our own backwards legal system is helping turn us into a third world country. It's exactly these kinds of rang

    • I rather doubt ip is the problem, more along the lines that postgres is the db with the higher quality and really enterprise ready.

      • by w_dragon (1802458)
        I've worked in enterprises running Oracle. I've worked in enterprises running MySQL. I've only once worked in an enterprise that was running postgres and that company was working on transitioning to MySQL. Anecdotal, of course, but I'm just not seeing any enterprises that agree with your assertion that postgres is better.
  • The article speculates that the change is because MySQL is now Oracle property

    Can't Oracle fix this problem by offering Oracle on mac hardware?

    • First of all, there are no serious apple servers sold at the moment. Second of all, Oracle is currently stopping support for several of it's competitors hardware platforms. I doubt they will add OSX if they just dumped HP-UX.
    • You can run Oracle's products on Mac hardware already. That's not the issue.

      The article is speculating that Oracle, who bought MySQL, may sue Apple if they start including MySQL as a packaged and preinstalled part of their OS X server distribution. Silly, you say, because there's still an open-source branch of MySQL free to download and distribute. Apple certainly hasn't stated that they are worried about the possibility, it's just speculation in this article. However stupid it may seem, keep in mind that O

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        If patents are really the issue then it doesn't matter what RDBMS you choose to install by default.

        That is kind of the whole problem with patents in general. They don't just relate to a particular product. They interfere with your ability to use or build a type of product in general.

        People seem to be misunderstanding the scope of patents here.

    • by wkcole (644783)

      The article speculates that the change is because MySQL is now Oracle property

      Can't Oracle fix this problem by offering Oracle on mac hardware?

      1. What "problem" would that be?

      2. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/macos/whatsnew/index.html [oracle.com]

      It is a bit telling that Oracle hasn't kept current on MacOS. Apple has never made heavy-duty servers suitable for Oracle, and has been falling behind in that space since Oracle 10 was the new hotness. The XServe wasn't a bad little box, but it was a *little* box that was really designed for Apple's existing customer population, not for heavy database users. Whatever else Oracle may be, they are not stu

  • by psergiu (67614) on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @09:24AM (#36971512)

    http://www.djangoapp.com/blog/2011/07/24/installation-of-mysql-server-on-mac-os-x-lion/ [djangoapp.com]

    1) Download the latest 64-Bit DMG Archive (Apple Disk Image) from MySQL Site (http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/). Current latest version is 5.5.14 which I’ll be using to install on my machine.
    2) Mount the Disk Image (I mean open/double-click the DMG file) and install MySQL server by double-clicking the PKG file (in my case mysql-5.5.14-osx10.6-x86_64.pkg) and follow onscreen instructions. ( It will ask for Master password, as it installs MySQL server in /usr/local )
    3) Add /usr/local/mysql/bin to your path by editing .profile file. (Optionally you can create alias to mysql and mysqladmin as mentioned in README File)
    4) You can start MySQL server by running “/usr/local/mysql/bin/mysqld_safe &” from terminal but Disk image you downloaded also consists of Startup Package & Preferences Pane which allows you to start/stop MySQL server from System Preferences and even Automatically Start MySQL Server at Startup.

  • Oracle seems intent to milk other companies for "passive" revenue instead of continuing to innovate. They've added "lawsuit trolling" to their business model. Congratulations--your company has completed its transformation from industry-dominating innovator to a complete-joke.

  • Elephant puts Lion in its place.

  • They heard about the new trend for no SQL
  • I don't think this is about Oracle. It's more likely security and licensing as some posters have mentioned above. Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison are big buddies and I doubt Apple is worried about lawsuits from Oracle over Oracle's free software product.
  • by dn15 (735502) on Wednesday August 03, 2011 @12:48PM (#36974208)

    This just in, MySQL is still free / open source and you can install it if you want.

    A more appropriate headline would have been "Postgres becomes default OS X Server database"

news: gotcha

Working...