Release of Interbase Beta For Linux

Baudtender was one of the folks who wrote to say that Interbase has been released for public testing. This is the open source release, with the code and more information available at Interbase.com

Comments

Open source

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like it is binary-only.

Thoughts on the Interbase Demo

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not bad. I mean, it'll never be as good as on Windows, or even a Commodore 64, but it shows that linux has come a long way. After about four hours of trial, 3 1/2 of which were spent crashing and finding bugs, I have to say I'm quite pleased. And this doesn't come a moment too soon, either. I was slipping ranks in capture the flag, because my flag was always unprotected. But now, with Interbase(tm), I can more easily compete with the rest of the FPS world. And it's a good place to leave a couple extra railguns sitting around, just in case. It never hurts. Well, I mean, it DOES hurt, that's rather the point, but it doesn't hurt me. Okay, well, maybe it DOES, but just a little, and besides, I kinda like it. It gives me that tingly feeling, like pulling on a new pair of socks. I haven't bought socks in a few weeks now. I really ought. Don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate the socks that I do have, but I could always stand to get a few new pairs. My wife doesn't think so. She thinks I have MORE than enough, but I only fill four drawers on the dresser. I even threw out all the old socks in the closet, but I guess that wasn't enough for her. No, it's never enough for her. SHE can go out and buy 15 new pair of shoes each week but if I bring home one pair, ONE PAIR of socks, mind you, she goes off her fricking rocker. Dumb bitch. She doesn't even WEAR socks.

Oh yeah, and we need to port this to BSD.

Re:Thoughts on the Interbase Demo

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried Powdermilk Biscuits?
My, they're tasty, and expeditious....

thank you.

Re:Thoughts on the Interbase Demo

[rm -rf /etc/*]

What they hell did he say?

Re:Thoughts on the Interbase Demo

[Anonymous Coward]

Actaully 5.6 for linux is stable as hell, and actually uses all the processors in the machine (unlike the windows version). The linux version is a mature product dude...6.0 is just a beta. I know your joking, but the fact is your joke does not fit here, as Interbase STARTED as a unix product dipshit.

Other databases

[AlexA]

Does anyone know how InterBase compares to other open-source/free databases like PostgreSQL, mySQL, etc.?

Re:Other databases

[DeekGeek]

I remember seeing an article in PC Week not too long ago that put several of these head-to-head. Unfortunately, I can't find anything on the PC Week website, and the hard copy magazine is long gone.

Any pack rat geeks out there still have theirs?

Re:Other databases

[arivanov]

Does not even come close. mySQL grills it as speed. PostgreSQL grills it as features.

This release has other importance IMHO, it is the step before Delphy. Deplphy first learns to work with Interbase than someone teaches it to work with the other guys ;-)

Re:Other databases

[barryk]

Does not even come close. mySQL grills it as speed. PostgreSQL grills it as features.

Yes, mySQL is faster, but at the cost of no transaction control. And PostgrSQL does not even fully conform to the entry level SQL92 standard. Interbase does, and more. It also has one of the most advanced Multi-Generational engines around. It is a great RDBMS for OLTP applications.

Re:Other databases

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your facts! Interbase is far more feature rich than PostgreSQL. Among other things Interbase has a procedural language which allows Stored Procedures and Triggers. Yes, mySQL is faster. But it gains that speed advantage by not supporting transactions. MySQL also lacks a procedural language and is missing many standard SOL92 features like sub-selects. Interbase competes on features with Oracle and SQL Server.

Re:Other databases

[shadrack]

In addition to the other comments here, it also supports an external event notification system. You can program in events that are received by external processes that have registered for them. Superior alternative to having external processes poll the database for info. It also supports multiple transactions against multiple databases (through the native API, not through the Borland database engine). It has a mature and tested API for both C and Delphi programmers, and there is an ODBC driver available. It supports SQL statements up to 64k in length. It also supports automatic Database shadowing, and allows a single database to span multiple drives.

Now to balance things. Interbase server side User defined functions are not threaded in the current Linux release (5.x). This can cause slow downs if lots of users are setting them off.
On the windows side where IB is truly and fully threaded, UDFs can't make calls to external programs/DLLs (ala SQL Server). Has poor support for temporary tables, though that can be easily overcome with good design and programming.

Overall though, IB is truly multiplatform and very easy to setup and maintain. You don't need a high priced Oracle style DBA to manage it.

Re:Other databases

[dhogaza]

Check your facts! Interbase is far more feature rich than PostgreSQL. Among other things Interbase has a procedural language which allows Stored Procedures and Triggers.

You check your facts.

PostgreSQL has a nice little procedural language called PL/pgSQL that works great, and lets you add procedures written in SQL, Perl, TCL and C if you feel the need.

Postgres also supports triggers.

Interbase is a great little database system. So are recent versions of postgres.

And there are partial ports of Philip Greenspun's web development toolkit for each, though the Postgres version's far more complete and up-to-date. It can be found here.

CPM?

[DeekGeek]

Other field test versions of InterBase 6.0 for Windows, Solaris and CPM will be made publicly available shortly.

Maybe I have my head in the cyber-sand, but is this the same CPM from the 1970's? I find that hard to believe, but then I find it hard to believe that people still use Basic and Cobol. =B)

Re:CPM?

[question authority]

A joke. In a pseudo-press release. The CPM version will be released just after the RSTS version and before the RT-11 version.

umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't seem to find the source either. And it says that the software expires on May 23, which doesn't seem quite as open as I had hoped. Though I won't complain too much; Inprise built up a lot of karma in my opinion by making the thing in the first place.

Re:umm...

[question authority]

Right. This release is a beta, released as binaries only with a commercial beta license - it's our first step. There will be more. Soon. This release is process-based, the so-called "classic" architecture used in the postgresql comparison. Our new website says "open source" all over it. That's enthusiasm overriding reality a bit. We'll get there. Soon. Ann

Well behaved

[deefer]

Nice. I've used Interbase on NT for the last year, and it's pretty much rock solid. Three crashes last year, full recovery each time - nice.
The real kicker for Interbase is the fact it's so bloody small - it hardly eats any resources. OK, it does lack some features, but you can get around these with a little effort.
As Linux gets ported to more and more embedded devices, there will be situations when a database will be useful. Interbase would plug that gap admirably.
Inprise are to be congratulated on this bold move - I am hoping to see a resurgence of Borland as a market leader in compiler technology. They already are, IMHO, except in market share...

Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.

Familiar Surroundings

[Captain_SpankMunki]

As someone who is just switching from Windooze to a far superiour product *Crowd goes wild at the meer suggestion of Linux* it's good to have some familiar stuff around to buffer my transition.

I shall be looking back in here to check the reviews and comments.

Will InterBase get shipped with the Linux versions of Borland DEs?

Cheers,
Captain SpankMunki

Try here

[MonkeyMagic]

For a very superficial look at PostgreSQL vs InterBase try this. Taken from the interbase link above.

Open Sores?

[Amphigory]

For the record, the current release is not open source -- despite the fact the linked page has Open Source plastered all over this. In fact, when you download you get binaries only. Remember: Inprise still have not announced what license "Open Source" Interbase is going to be released under.

Watch carefully -- it's libel to be free beer only. (Not that I'm complaining. It still beats the heck out of MySQL for what I do, and I'm not an Open Source zealot) I just wish they would not call it open source until it is open source.

Did I just miss the source code on the web site? Anybody from Inprise care to comment?

--

Re:Open Sores?

[barryk]

Remember: Inprise still have not announced what license "Open Source" Interbase is going to be released under.

I believe they are releasing it under the Mozilla Licence.

Faster than MySQL?

[mind21_98]

According to these results, PostergSQL seems more able to support multiple connections at once. Does this mean that the projects that are totally open source from the start are faster? Or is it because Interbase hasn't had time to be patched and/or fixed?

Re:Faster than MySQL?

[KyleCordes]

I think the issue is that they have a "new" architecture and an "old" architecture... the old one is a process-per-db-connection, with no data cache shared between the connection processes. (Obviously this is a remarkably BAD idea). The new architecture is one big "super-server" process (or a few processes, or something like this) with shared cache and all the other obvious stuff.

The Linux code still uses the old architecture. The NT code uses the new.

Re:Faster than MySQL?

[sab39]

Are McDonalds fries better than Burger King fries because companies with two arches as a logo make better fries? Or is it because Burger King hasn't had a chance to update its logo yet? (actually I prefer BK, but you get the point...)

Faster databases are faster databases; whether or not they are open source is pretty much orthogonal to this issue. If you're referring to the claim that open source software is faster, better and more stable, you should be aware that this is a statement about generalities, not specific software. For example, Microsoft Office is indisputably more feature-complete than AbiWord. Now this isn't bashing AbiWord - it just hasn't got to the point of being complete yet. The point is that claims about the superior performance of open-source solutions can only be made in general; if you try to claim that it is true in *every* specific case, there will always be counterexamples (although they will be increasingly hard to find as more open source projects get more and more complete).

Stuart.

Retraction

[Amphigory]

My apologies -- apparently, Inprise have announce the license. Namely, the MPL. This was mentioned in an article I had not seen. However, it still seems odd that they have not yet released the source code.

--

Mozilla Public License

[Andrew Cady]

According to ZDNET, Inprise will "release its upcoming InterBase 6.0 database under the open-source Mozilla Public License 1.1". They're probably just removing all the sexist jokes from the comments before they go public with it.

Re:Mozilla Public License

[question authority]

Right. Adonica, Sarah, Gail, and I were wild women. Seriously. There's conditional code for some very dead ports that we need to get out and some "features" like restrictive licensing that also need to go. Ann

Interbase and Others

[jallen02]

Okay I have read a few reviews where they stackerd Interbase up to PostgreSQL and talked about the limitation sof MySQL.

MySQL
Good Stuff
Very fast for read heavy or low user-load apps.
Good Security
Good Support with web publishing systems
Not So Good Stuff
No Transaction Support
Table locking system behaves poorly with many connections
Noy SQL-92 Compliant.

Okay a little about interbase and PostgreSQL now. PostgreSQL has a shared cache, something interbase DOES not have in the Linux version as of yet. Interbase blows PostgreSQL out of the water for single user queries.
Interbase TPS on OLTP Single Read test was over 150
The same test for PostgreSQL was at the 50 mark. for transactions per second.

But if you are expecting many concurrent connections interbase does not have the *best* setup and PostgreSQL will actually outperform Interbase under lots of connection/high-load.

Without the shared cache PostgreSQL was like three times faster than interbase. Go PostgreSQL. Another nice thing about Interbase is that it IS SQL-92 compliant. Okay Enjoy and I hope this was a litle useful.
Oh BTW Interbase is under the Mozilla License

(lol I was asked to check out the two database like last eek :-)

Jeremy

Re:Interbase and Others

[tm2b]

...and don't forget that MySQL is not Open Source.

Re:Interbase and Others

[jallen02]

Honestly given the amount of publicity MySQL has gotten I did something very horrible and assumed most everyone knows that MySQL is open source and basically free. :-)

PostgreSQL is BSD License
Interbase is gonna be Mozilla
MySQL is GPL/Pseudo Free

Re:Interbase and Others

[_Stryker]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but MySQL is NOT using the GPL. From their website:

NOTE: This license is not the same as any of the GNU Licenses published by the Free Software Foundation. Its terms are substantially different from those of the GNU Licenses. If you are familiar with the GNU Licenses, please read this license with extra care.

This is found at http:/ /www.mysql.org/Manual_chapter/manual_Public_licens e.html#Public_license.

Now they did release an older version (3.20.32a) under the GPL, but that is not nearly the same as releasing the latest versions. This has already been discussed extensively in this slashdot article.
---

First Cut-N-Paste

[Anonymous Coward]

Inprise Offers InterBase 6.0 - Linux for Public Field Test
InterBase 6.0 for Linux now available for download on InterBase web site. (www.interbase.com)

SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., March 8th, 2000 -- Inprise Corporation (Nasdaq: INPR) today announced a public field test of InterBase 6.0 for the Linux operating system now available as a download from the InterBase web site, http://www.interbase.com/open/downloads/linux60bet a.html

Two years have gone by since InterBase 4.0 was originally released as freeware for Linux. Following on from recent announcements regarding the open-sourcing of InterBase 6.0, the new version of its cross-platform relational database - Interbase would like all interested parties to freely download and test this latest version of InterBase for Linux. Any feedback on this new version can be sent to ib_support@inprise.com or alternatively users are encouraged to participate in the field test newsgroups

Other field test versions of InterBase 6.0 for Windows, Solaris and CPM will be made publicly available shortly.

About InterBase 6
InterBase 6.0 is a powerful, high-performance cross-platform relational database designed for business-critical, mobile computing and Internet-based applications on Linux, Windows NT, Solaris, and other UNIX operating systems. Since 1985, InterBase has provided technologically superior relational database solutions to meet the business-critical database needs of numerous companies such as Nokia, Ericsson, MCI, Northern Telecom, Bear Stearns, the Money Store, the US Army, NASA, and Rob Schieck's mers.com web site. Through its ease of use, maintainability, simplified deployment and small footprint, InterBase has become the preferred embedded database solution.

The Linux and Inprise development community tells us that this release of InterBase is one of the best things that has happened to them this week. There is no doubt that InterBase and Linux are a perfect fit, because both are known for stability and reliability combined with absolute zero cost of ownership," said Markus Kemper, Director of the Mustang 5.0 Ownership Club at InterBase.

About Inprise/Borland
Inprise Corporation is a leading provider of Internet-enabling software and services that reduce the complexity of application development for corporations and individual programmers. Inprise delivers integrated, scalable and secure solutions distinguished for their ease of use, performance and productivity. Committed to open platforms, Inprise continues its tradition of service and support for millions of software developers around the world through its online developer community and E-commerce site http://community.borland.com providing a range of technical information, value-added services and third-party products. Founded in 1983, Inprise is headquartered in Scotts Valley, California, with operations worldwide.

Interbase scalability vs. Postgres scalability

[dhogaza]

Postgres beat out Interbase on throughput with many connections because the version of Interbase being released for Linux is the non-threaded version. This version doesn't maintain a shared cache between the separate database processes. Postgres isn't threaded, either, but uses shared memory to cache blocks between backend processes.

Though the released version of Interbase is the non-threaded one, apparently the source for the treaded version WILL be released, and I've seen a quote from one of the Interbase folks stating his hope that folks in the Linux community will port over the threaded version, too.

In that case, scalability shouldn't really be an issue for Interbase, because the threaded version does implement cache sharing between threads.

Postgres reached its maximum throughput on the artificial benchmark at 50 users on a dual P450 with (I think) 512MB RAM, according to the PC Week guy.

Also, note that Postgres v7.0, now in beta, implements some of the missing SQL features mentioned in the article. In particular, referential integrity complete with "on cascade/update delete/set null/default" referential actions is included.

Regarding mySQL, yes, it is very fast for simple queries. For high-volume use it is less than ideal, though, as it implements concurrency control by locking entire tables. Postgres, Interbase and Oracle all implement concurrency control such that readers NEVER wait for writers, and writers only lock affected rows during a transaction (unless the user does a "select for update" or otherwise imposes a more stringent lock ).

Table locking is evil for high-volume sites. This is one reason for Oracle's popularity at high-end e-commerce sites.

Re:Interbase scalability vs. Postgres scalability

[FigWig]

Postgres, Interbase and Oracle all implement concurrency control such that readers NEVER wait for writers...

This is incorrect. Readers must wait when a page (the usual locking granularity AFAIK) is write locked or they could use data that is later rolled back. That would be an unrepeatable read and is bad.

Oh yes, the joys of two phase locking...

Anyone know why PostgreSQL is so slow (relatively) for single users? I heard that the default setting always flushed the cache after a write, but I don't know if this the problem or even if it is true.

Re:Interbase scalability vs. Postgres scalability

[dhogaza]

"This is incorrect. Readers must wait when a page (the usual locking granularity AFAIK) is write locked or they could use data that is later rolled back. That would be an unrepeatable read and is bad."

Sorry, I am absolutely correct. Readers don't see the uncommitted data being written by another transaction, but rather previously committed data, and therefore aren't blocked by writers. It's all done on a row-level locking basis. Postgres and Interbase implement a very similar tuple-storing scheme which makes this (relatively) easy. This scheme is expensive in space, though - in Postgres, at least, you have to manually garbage collect your database with "vacuum" to reclaim space occupied by obsolete tuples. I run it automatically once a night.

Rollback doesn't affect committed data - read the definition of "commit" in any text on transaction processing if you don't understand.

I might be slightly wrong about Oracle, it may block readers of rows being written, anyone know for sure? I know this isn't true for Postgres, though - I've read the source. Writers don't block readers.

You are right that many commercial dbs do lock on a page basis. You are wrong in insisting that all do, and that row-level locking can not implement transaction semantics.

Those of us who support Open Source should be pleased that we have TWO Open Source databases that support write-locking on a row-level rather than block level basis, and that both never block readers when writing.

Postgres was slow for single users on one large benchmark run by PC Week. It's not been investigated thus far. I have some personal theories, though.

Postgres doesn't flush the cache after a write - but it DOES fsynch a table's file at each transaction commit, which in effect ends up being about the same thing. Plans are to implement a full-blown write-ahead log later this year, which will remove the necessity of fsynch'ing data files at commit time. Only the write-ahead log need by fsynch'd. The current fsynch'ing behavior is necessary to ensure that data is flushed to the disk before the separate transaction log is written marking the transaction complete. Again, a full write-ahead log will speed things up by removing the need to do that.

Re:Interbase scalability vs. Postgres scalability

[FigWig]

Sorry, I am absolutely correct. Readers don't see the uncommitted data being written by another transaction, but rather previously committed data, and therefore aren't blocked by writers.

I guess my background in DBs is overly academic :) Heh, and my professor worked on PostgreSQL at Berkeley and at 2 major DB companies. I just always pictured it as a single, shared buffer pool/cache in memory, which was both read from and written to. I guess I need to bust out the PGSQL source tarball.

Rollback doesn't affect committed data - read the definition of "commit" in any text on transaction processing if you don't understand.

Of course rollback doesn't effect committed transactions, which is why I questioned letting dirty pages get read before commiting.

You are right that many commercial dbs do lock on a page basis. You are wrong in insisting that all do, and that row-level locking can not implement transaction semantics.

I don't know what post you read, but I never insisted that all DBs use page-level locking or that it is necessary for proper serialization. I just stated that in my experience, it is very common, because it provides good transaction throughput. What are the benefits from row-level locking?

My I'm feeling defensive this afternoon....

Re:Interbase scalability vs. Postgres scalability

[dhogaza]

You worked with Stonebreaker? Cool. In those days, though, Postgres worked at a table-locking level, I believe. Maybe page locking but I don't think so. Multi-variate concurrency control or MVCC, which is what the new scheme is called in Postgres, was only implemented about 15 months ago. It is equivalent to Interbase's multi-generational concurrency control or whatever they call it.

The benefits of row-level locking vs. page-level locking? Same as the benefits of page-level vs. table-level, or table-level vs. locking an entire disk drive, etc.

Finer granularity means fewer backends are blocked for any given write operation that affects data occupying the same or less space than the granule.

Pure row-level locking would mean that only readers reading the particular rows being updated would block on a write operations. As opposed to the reading of any row within a table if you only implement table locking. Etc etc. Surely the benefit of this is obvious in a high-concurrency environment. For the single user running PSQL there is, of course, no benefit.

Postgres (and AFAIK Interbase) can go a step further. Since you worked with Stonebreaker, you probably know that writing a new version of a tuple in a table in Postgres doesn't overwrite the old tuple in the table. A new tuple is made which is associated with the current transaction. That means the old, previously-committed tuple is available for other readers, which means they don't have to be blocked until the transaction writing the table has committed or rolled back.

Writers don't block readers. Conceptually easy, harder than it sounds in practice, but much easier with a tuple-storage scheme such as is implemented by Postgres than it is with certain other schemes. Let me hasten to add that there are drawbacks to the Postgres tuple-storage scheme, as well! But the high degree of concurrency made possible by MVCC is a huge win in certain application spaces, such as high-traffic web sites.

Re:Interbase scalability vs. Postgres scalability

[connor_macleod]

Anyone know MMSQL's capabilities here ... can it do locking of single rows when updating?
-

InterBase Information

[Anonymous Coward]

6.0 Beta Newsgroups
KnowledgeBase
Articles
Links
Partners
Examples
Contributing

Inprise Offers InterBase 6.0 - Linux for Public Field Test

InterBase 6.0 for Linux now available for download on InterBase web site. (www.interbase.com)

SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., March 8th, 2000 -- Inprise Corporation (Nasdaq: INPR) today announced a public field test of InterBase 6.0 for the Linux operating system now available as a download from the InterBase web site, http://www.interbase.com/open/downloads/linux60bet a.html

Two years have gone by since InterBase 4.0 was originally released as freeware for Linux. Following on from recent announcements regarding the open-sourcing of InterBase 6.0, the new version of its cross-platform relational database - Interbase would like all interested parties to freely download and test this latest version of InterBase for Linux. Any feedback on this new version can be sent to ib_support@inprise.com or alternatively users are encouraged to participate in the field test newsgroups

Other field test versions of InterBase 6.0 for Windows, Solaris and CPM will be made publicly available shortly.

About InterBase 6
InterBase 6.0 is a powerful, high-performance cross-platform relational database designed for business-critical, mobile computing and Internet-based applications on Linux, Windows NT, Solaris, and other UNIX operating systems. Since 1985, InterBase has provided technologically superior relational database solutions to meet the business-critical database needs of numerous companies such as Nokia, Ericsson, MCI, Northern Telecom, Bear Stearns, the Money Store, the US Army, NASA, and Rob Schieck's mers.com web site. Through its ease of use, maintainability, simplified deployment and small footprint, InterBase has become the preferred embedded database solution.

The Linux and Inprise development community tells us that this release of InterBase is one of the best things that has happened to them this week. There is no doubt that InterBase and Linux are a perfect fit, because both are known for stability and reliability combined with absolute zero cost of ownership," said Markus Kemper, Director of the Mustang 5.0 Ownership Club at InterBase.

About Inprise/Borland
Inprise Corporation is a leading provider of Internet-enabling software and services that reduce the complexity of application development for corporations and individual programmers. Inprise delivers integrated, scalable and secure solutions distinguished for their ease of use, performance and productivity. Committed to open platforms, Inprise continues its tradition of service and support for millions of software developers around the world through its online developer community and E-commerce site http://community.borland.com providing a range of technical information, value-added services and third-party products. Founded in 1983, Inprise is headquartered in Scotts Valley, California, with operations worldwide.

InterBase: the OPEN source database (minus the source)
Spamming for karma. If AC's do it, then karma whores cant. penix penix penix.

Table locking issues.

[shadrack]

You can easily avoid table locking in IB with proper transaction management. IB defaults to an optimistic locking scheme to avoid lock outs and unresolved deadlocks and unless you write some exceptionally bad SQL, the worst you get is table locking.

The price is that if you leave a lot of transactions open, it's multgenerational architecture can eat up a lot of ram per user. The key is to finish and commit as quickly as possible, and put some code in to automatically rollback after a predetermined timeout period. (yes I have been using it for over 3 years).

Also check out www.interbase2000.org

[shadrack]

If I understand what I've been reading lately, Interbase2000 will be the new company handling the new open source version of Interbase. It is also the home of the new Interbase Developers Initiative, so coders, developers, writers, users... are invited to join in and have a direct impact on future development. Some of the best IB people in the world are already part of it.

Vastly superior

[Anonymous Coward]

It is SQL compliant and offers many bells and whistles that the others can't.

Get some kneesocks

[Anonymous Coward]

They are the hottest. Maybe your wife will wear them for you. For an idea of how hot this is, look at this young lady wearing kneesocks . My wife wears them all the time for me and I love it... we have a great time, I get "it" all out of my system, then I can get back to work on serious things, like Linux and new applications for it.

Re:Can Someone Help Me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try here.

/.

[shipperZ]

Has /. got nothing better to post than a haze of software releases? Personally, I don't think a software release is really news in the first place. How come EVERY commercial buy-out of a cool web site, inevitably leads to a downgrade in the quality of the web site?

One other thing.

[jallen02]

As far as programming API's go MySQL wins HANDS down. Its so easy to put out C code to interface with MySQL. A big hand should go to MySQL people for making a sane C API :-)

New Licenses available....

[Ronin Developer]

Go to their newsgroup. They posted new licenses as of yesterday.

News Server: forums.borland.com
I think the news group was: interbase.public.kinobi.

Thoughts on Interbase, PostGressSQL and MySQL

[shadrack]

Just a thought. There is an opportunity here for the developers of PostGressSQL, MySQL and people at the new Interbase2000 company to join together and create a truly world class RDBMS product.

With open source and the combined talent of these three orgs, it would be possible to create the "definitive" database for Linux, much like what was done on the DEC Vax systems, and make it a powerful and intregal part of Linux. It would be the ultimate counter to SQLServer on Wintel.

If only all involved could set aside egos and personal agendas this could actually happen.

Maybe I will get flamed for this, but the idea keeps cropping up in my thick head, and I had to get it out.

Relational Databases Considered Harmful

[Kaufmann]

They are. But don't take it from me, mind you - take it from the (in)famous Mr Henry Baker, in this incredible letter (*) to the Communications of the ACM, which is guaranteed to put a smile in the face of everyone who's ever thought there must be a better way.

(*) Note that Netcom, which hosts Mr Baker's archive, is under a large load, and may take a few attempts to be accessed.

Familiar Surroundings

[Effendi13]

I think it is most likely that IB for Linux will ship it's entirety with Kylix. You may also see it ship with Corel Linux. I would also venture to say that some borland shared libraries, or maybe an Enterprise version of Corel Linux will contain Kylix. Of course we will have to see.

-Effendi

A Poll?

[kuroineko]

Like this:
( ) I know all the tricks, and willing to contribute, gimme the code
( ) I know !@#$, but can probably draw yet another WISQL in Delphi
( ) there's a community, you know, they do things
( ) also by Hemos

Not Open Source.

[Kierkan]

Quote form the License.txt file:

INTERBASE 6.0 BETA TEST FOR LINUX
LICENSE STATEMENT AND LIMITED WARRANTY

...
You acknowledge that the Software in source code form remains a confidential trade secret of Inprise and/or its suppliers and therefore you agree not to modify the Software or attempt to reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such
activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.

Doesn't sound like Open Source to me.

Re:Not Open Source.

[dhogaza]

This beta is in binary form, only, thus the provisions again reverse engineering, etc.

My understanding is that the Open Source release will come Q3.

Re:Not Open Source.

[question authority]

Open source is our goal. This is our first
step. You should have seen the NDA that went
with the earlier beta.

Ann

good...

[rbf]

This is good, the more commercial "options" the more we can displace NT! :)

rbf aka pulsar

Poll Update

[kuroineko]

Gee, it looks like the poll needs another option:
( ) Free beer!

Re:Other databases - Don't Compare

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Interbase I have used for over 3 years, and the others a little longer. You see they don't compare because they are not real full SQL databases. But in general it does not lock pages, shadows data and resolves conflicts itself...meaning in general it is well suited to multiusers, and allows others to read a record while the one it read/writing the record. You see interbase just basically puts those others to shame. In fact it puts oracle and friends to shame dude.

Careful! 5.6 and 6.0 are like apples and oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

Be aware that the 6.0 beta for linux is a threaded app and 5.6 was their classic (it ran from inetd.conf with a seperate lock manager that talked to processes). What this means is the test needs to be reran with 6.0B, as 6.0 should be many times faster than 5.6...

Its open source dude...

[Anonymous Coward]

they are cleaning up the code is all...converting it from their native in house cvs to a open source one.

Please Please Please open source the Brief editor

[Anonymous Coward]

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away a group of guys formed a company called Underware and created one of the greatest editors in the known universe -- its name was Brief. Then a company called Borland bought out this editor to incorporate in its Pascal and C++ IDEs and then suddenly dropped it like a rock. Borland then became Imprise which was then bought out by Corel -- which prides itself as a mainstay in the open-source world. Who can I beg for the release of the source code to this GREAT forgotten product that they now own. They aren't selling it so they wouldn't be losing any money and I will be more then happy (along with a few thousand others) to port this Jewel over to Linux.

Oh, and Borland (No longer called Inprise)

[Anonymous Coward]

who just got bought out by corel is NOT affliated with the Interbase Company, they spun off to themselves to offer support and release source code!

Linux 6.0B uses the new threaded superserver!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuff said...it will now kick postgres ass...

V6 has the shared cache.

[Dacta]

Interbase 6 (the one just released as beta) is available with the shared cache under Linux.

That's despite what it says in the article about it not being ready - it seems they finished it after all did. (I'll try and find a link for this)

That should make quite a difference as demonstated by this (from teh PC Week article)

InterBase is clearly a very well-tuned product when given enough memory. As a comparison point, we also tested InterBase using 65,536 cache pages of 4,000KB each in a single-user test; InterBase pushed through 139 tps (transactions per second) compared with PostgreSQL's peak result of 74 tps at the same cache size.

Also, see this quote:

Our benchmark results show clear advantages to both products under different types of workloads. InterBase was significantly faster than PostgreSQL on both simple reads and complex joins on single-user tests, which is how database-enabled Web sites usually access databases. These results indicate an efficient query parser, optimizer and data page seek algorithm

I'm just looking forward to them getting it up on Sourceforge!

It's coming, apparently!

[CRConrad]

At least according to David I, who promises "More Antique Software Coming Soon To The Museum" on Borland's developer community Web site.

Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.

Anyone w/ points reading the above, pls MOD IT UP!

[CRConrad]

This Ann seems to be Ann Harrison, ferchrissake -- she's only like one of the founders of Interbase, and president of the new company, you know... How could it *get* any more "informative" than that, if I may ask?

Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.

Anyone w/ points reading the above, pls MOD IT UP!

[CRConrad]

This Ann seems to be Ann Harrison, ferchrissake -- she's only like one of the founders of Interbase, and president of the new company, you know... So this is straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

(And she's pretty goddarn funny too, in this post! Wild, you say? Aah, too sad I was too young to have been there with you and the rest of those "wild women"... Oh well, you were probably all married anyway. :-)

Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.

Anyone w/ points reading the above, pls MOD IT UP!

[CRConrad]

This Ann seems to be Ann Harrison, ferchrissake -- she's only like one of the founders of Interbase, and president of the new company, you know... If anybody knows what they're talking about, it has to be her, donchathink?

Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.