Xaprb

If you haven’t seen it, Josh Berkus has a very concise way to look at the confusing mess that is database “clustering” from the point of view of three distinct types of users: transactional, analytic, and online. I think that using this kind of distinction could help keep discussions clear — I’ve seen a lot of conversations around clustering run off the rails due to disagreements about what clustering means. MySQL Cluster, for example, is a huge red herring for a lot of people, but it seems to be a difficult process to learn it well enough to decide. If we called it a clustering solution for transactional users, but not for analytic or online users, it might help a lot.

MySQL’s version numbering is getting harder and harder to understand. In fact, it’s getting surreal.

Let me state up front that there’s probably a lot I don’t know here. But if I don’t know, how on earth can the general public figure it out?

Before we begin, let’s define terms: GA is completely done, ready for use. RC is a release candidate: don’t change anything, just fix bugs because we’re charging towards a release here. Beta is possibly unsafe code, use at your own risk. Alpha is known to have significant bugs, but if you’re curious please play with it.

Now for the releases/versions game. Let’s recap:

• 5.0 has version numbers that leapfrog each other in features and functionality. SHOW PROFILES — now you see it, now you don’t.
• 5.1 has been “… released to general availability [as] a near-final release candidate,” whatever that means.
• 5.1 has just had drastic changes in the RC stage. (Remove Federated in 5.1.24, remove RENAME DATABASE, remove Cluster.) And it’s going to have more changes before it’s released, too: Federated will be added back in 5.1.25.
• 5.2 doesn’t exist. Last year at the MySQL conference, someone made an abrupt decision to skip 5.2 and inflate the version numbers to 6.0, which has big changes in the query optimizer and other areas.
• 6.0 is alpha, but it includes Falcon, which is beta even though Falcon has extremely bad bugs that its developers claim are not bugs.
• 6.1 doesn’t exist as far as I know.
• 6.2 not only exists, but it is GA. Not only that, but it just… appeared as GA, as far as I know. No RC stage, no nothing — at least, nothing on the MySQL website that I see (certainly no manual version). It went from nonexistent to GA instantaneously as far as I know. It was created by extracting the Cluster code from 5.1.
• 6.2 is GA, but 5.1 is RC.
• 6.2 is GA, but 6.1 doesn’t exist as far as I know.
• 6.2 is GA, but 6.0 is alpha. (Hopefully you see the pattern here.)
• 6.2 is GA, but presumably does not include the changes made in 6.0, since it was derived from 5.1’s code.

What is going on here?

How is this an improved release model? What is improved about this?

How in the world can anyone figure out what versions of the software have what features? Who can make an educated decision about what product to use in this situation? Are people supposed to just rely on the sales people to help them figure out what to use? Boy, is that trusting the fox to guard the henhouse.

Why didn’t they just release 5.1 Cluster as GA separately, if that reflected the reality in the code? They certainly missed an opportunity to show some progress on 5.1. As it is, 5.1 got robbed of its chance to have at least some of its code go GA after more than 2.5 years in development. Now 5.1 looks like even more of an embarrassment — hey 5.1 team, how come you can’t get anything out the door when these 6.2 people are releasing GA products? Not to mention 6.0 — you guys look bad now too! (Just kidding.)

I tried to draw a timeline of MySQL’s release history, in some detail in the 5.0 history and in very basic detail in the 5.1 and 6.0 and 6.2 trees. You can take a look at that. It’s worth studying for 5 minutes or so, even though it’s kind of ugly. There are lots of oddities to notice about it. Enjoy:

The inmates are running the asylum. This gets more and more amusing as time goes on.

I have an ingrained (possibly even genetic) aversion to stock images. Actually, not all stock: just the vacuous kind. You know what I mean: like the politically-correct, gender-balanced, racially-balanced, age-diverse ones where people are all smiling and pointing at a computer screen you can’t see. Ugh!

(Photo credit: istockphoto.com)

There are many reasons not to use images like this. I guess it’s okay in some situations — for example when you just want a smiling, attractive woman with a customer-service headset to reinforce that you’ve come to the right place for support. However, even these really don’t have to be stock images. One of my former employers used their own employees for such photos, almost exclusively, and it made the site much more real. And there are plenty of examples of companies that use photos of their own employees and get “realness” as a result. If I’m not mistaken, Title Nine does so except for certain things, such as underwear models (for obvious reasons).

However, one great reason to eschew stock: other people will re-use the same image. A famous example from a few years ago: the cover image of Head First Design Patterns was a stock photo that also appeared in a commercial for a feminine hygiene product.

This incident was actually pretty widely linked on the Internet at that time. So no one will ever make that mistake again!

Or will they? Witness: the cover of the MySQL 5.1 Cluster DBA Certification Guide, the xTuple Home Page, and the cover of the MegaRAID Management Suite documentation.

Interestingly, I ran across all three over-usages of this image in one day, completely by accident. Are there other places this image is used? I’d bet there are.

Who cares? Well, the images that go on the cover of your book, your brochure, or your website become part of your image. If someone else then uses the same image, they can (accidentally or otherwise) exert some control over what people think of your product or company.

If this matters — and it almost certainly does — you should just get some of your own employees, hire a good photographer, and go into your own server room (or beg a friend to let you into theirs) for a photo.

On the subject of image, I’ve just gone to a photographer for some new portraits of myself, and I’m also hiring someone to design a logo for Maatkit (for a new website, and for t-shirts to give away at the upcoming conference). I’ll post more about that later.