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
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.
Quantity is no substitute for quality, but its the only one we've got.