No, not really.

MySQL has the concept of storage engines, in which, for every table type you create, you pick which storage engine you want to use: MyISAM, InnoDB, etc. That will determine what features one gets. However, most people don't even bother reading a single bit and get a knee-jerk reaction because the default type is the old MyISAM. Granted, it shouldn't be the default anymore, but still... bliss is only one click away for changing the table type.

InnoDB is the second most-common storage engine (the first being the old/kludgy MyISAM) and is ACID-compliant, supports foreign keys, etc. The only thing it lacks is full-text support which is only available on MyISAM tables, but that can be worked around of relatively easily.

There are also other storage engines available, some free, some commercial, and some that enable some neat tricks (like the Blackhole storage engine for replication purposes).

You bring up a good point there, and I won't try to dismiss it as it's certainly valid. Misfired releases, so to speak, have hurt MySQL in recent history and created division even in its own community.

I'm just trying to shake down these age-old misconceptions that no longer have any base in reality :) (no foreign keys! no transaactions! no ACID!).

I could see your point if MySQL weren't being used in some high-profile instances. However, even that isn't the case anymore. For instance, Google has submitted quite some patches of its own to MySQL.

See MySQL's case studies here: http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/case-studies/

Disclaimer: I am not in any way related to MySQL as more than a web developer. I'm even contemplating a move to PostgreSQL somewhere down the road due to the recent Oracle shenanigans. But nowadays, it is a pretty good product.

You have to specifically create the tables with a non-standard SQL code to get them to use the right database backend to get foreign key support.

The what to the who, now? Dude, if you're using MySQL and you have issues because you can't get past the default storage engine, I can't wait to see what happens when you have to do actual work.

It's not 2000 anymore. 99% of the problems people have historically with MySQL are simply not present in recent production versions. PostgreSQL and MySQL roughly have feature parity nowadays, Stop treating MySQL as if it's some toy. WikiVS has a good, up-to-date comparison: http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/MySQL_vs_PostgreSQL

I also find it amusing that an AC below complains about "how many storage engines"? Whoosh, that's the sound of the point flying over his head.

By the way, I'm not dissing PostgreSQL in any way, I think it's great. But it's about time some meaningless mantras stop being chanted.

I'm sorry? "there's not practical difference between 24fps and 60fps"?

Few people will be able to tell motion above 60fps, sure, but up to that point any human can and will notice the difference. Ever wondered why a movie's motion will look completely different that the motion of your standard news / soap opera / etc? That's the 24-to-30fps difference alone.