alt Hacker NewsI would agree with that, although I personally found it preferable in 2001-2002, since it matched the feature set of SQL Server in all the important ways that MySQL didn't. I think it may have been late 2000s before it was clearly preferred for new projects and even later before it was the thing you had to explain why you weren't using it.
edit to add: MySQL did have operational advantages even later than mid 2000s since it had master/master replication from very early (I don't know how sound it was, I doubt it was perfect). That was a real reason to choose it. We still don't have it in Postgres without extensions and even there citus is not really the same.
Oh yeah, we were early adopters of MySQL's master/master replication at an online retailer. Certainly an "interesting" experience, and I remember becoming very well acquainted with the vagaries of the binlog!
(I remember it being heavily touted in the first edition of the O'Reilly "High Performance MySQL" book. The second edition was about twice the length, with most of the additional pagecount going into detailed explanations of why you should actually be very careful and do lots of testing before deciding to rely on master/master!)
Actually, I remember that one of the drivers away from MySQL before Oracle came along was the 4.x and 5.x period, when there were various performance regressions. And even when those were sorted out, the introduction of InnoDB made people realise that MySQL's apparent speed advantage was really just down to MyISAM lacking referential integrity and transactions.
Certainly, there were people clinging on to MySQL 3.23 for read-heavy data warehousing applications for a very long time.