MySQL Released Under The GPL

Bryan Mattern was the first of hundreds to note that MySQL is being released under the GPL, as well as forming a partnership with VA Linux (which of course now owns Andover). This means nice things like it can move out of non-free in debian, and that the postgress/MySQL debate can now be argued in terms of features instead of license. MySQL's license was definitely a hurdle for the FAISC ^[?] so I'm really glad to see this happen.

Comments

Good, now would..

[Rombuu]

..someone please stick transactions in it? I mean, its not even really a database without transactions... not to mention doesn't follow the SQL standard since COMMIT and ROLLBACK are not optional operations.

Re:Good, now would..

[frog99]

Look at the dev versions 3.23.xx.

Re:Good, now would..

[Abcd1234]

I can definitely agree with you on this one. Without proper transaction support, a LOT more stuff has to go on at the application level, which is rather annoying for us coders. :)

Anyway, IIRC, the mySQL devel team is working to incorporate transactions into mySQL. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the latest version support BDB (Berkley DB) tables, which support proper transactions?

Re:Good, now would..

[Abcd1234]

Ooooh, I'd definitely disagree on this one. As an example, when it comes to writing code which tracks inventories, etc, for online purchasing, it's VERY necessary to have transactions. After all, what happens if two people try to buy the same item, of which there is only one left in stock? You get a phantom read (or was this one a fuzzy read... I can't remember :). The only way to avoid this sort of thing is to support proper, serializable transactions, or to do what you'd do with mySQL... lock the table. :) The point is, any time you have a high number of concurrent database accesses, some of which include updates, you definitely need transactions (or more stuff at the application level to prevent this sort of thing, which is what you need to do with mySQL).

Re:Good, now would..

[MartinG]

I would guess we can expect lots of improvements, both in MySQL and PostgreSQL.
There is now real competition in the GNU GPL RBBMS marketplace.
AFAIK, until now PostgreSQL was the obvious GPL winner.
How (or if) this motivates the members of either RDBMS will be interesting. I think we can expect this to improve both in the long term.

Re:Good, now would..

[AndroSyn]

Now how about support for stored procedures and a decent procedural language to go with it as well.

You must realize that interprocess communicator is rather slow and expensive and having to fire off ten queries to do something is kind of silly when you could just rewrite a procedure and store it in the database and execute that with a single statement from the database client.

Re:Good, now would..

[MrEfficient]

..someone please stick transactions in it? I mean, its not even really a database without transactions... not to mention doesn't follow the SQL standard since COMMIT and ROLLBACK are not optional operations.

Why are you asking for transactions or any other RDBMS feature in MySQL? MySQL is good at being a fast, easy to use database-like application. If you want a true RDBMS, just use PostgreSQL. Both MySQL and Postgres have their strengths and weaknesses, and each targets a slightly different user in my opinion. If you want a true RDBMS, then use a RDBMS, don't ask MySQL to be something its not.

Re:Good, now would..

[arthurs_sidekick]

Why does every story on MySQL have to contain a complaint like this (and why are they always moderated up to the heavens)?

A MNemOnic I offer to the world: MySQL is Not Oracle. It doesn't try to be one, that's not the goal. Yes, it isn't a heck of a lot more than an SQL frontend to a flat file system. That's all some of us want. OK, subselects would be nice, but IIRC they're working on that. But this constant kvetching about lack of transactions should really stop. If you want something with transactions, use Postgres or Interbase or pay for it.

I am becoming *such* a cranky old man.

Re:Good, now would..

[gregbillock]

MySQL does support transactions. You can declare some tables BDB (Berkeley DB) type, which will support COMMIT/ROLLBACK, and others MyISAM type, which will be blazing fast, and use them both in a JOIN or what-have-you.

Re:Good, now would..

[SoftwareJanitor]

If you need transactions, check out PostgreSQL, which is also free. Not as fast as MySQL, but supports transactions and a more full featured SQL implementation. I am personally hoping now that MySQL is under a compatible license to PostgreSQL that some 'cross-pollination' between the two projects can happen. Get some more features into MySQL and some more speed into PostgreSQL.

Re:Good, now would..

[phred]

Same mistake here as always. MySQL is a relational database. "Transactions" does not define what "relational" is -- go read E. F. Codd's papers if you don't know why.

------

Re:Good, now would..

[SoftwareJanitor]

Do you actually do any development? Sure, you can't just cut and paste stuff verbatim from completely different code, but if I've got access to code I can steal from freely, I can damned well at least crib some ideas from it as to how to do some things, if not adapt some parts of the code. Having a reference implementation in source available is sometimes invaluable even if you are writing all new code.

What you are talking about with Windows source code to Linux is a little bit different -- you are talking about code designed for radically different platforms with different APIs. Both MySQL and PostgreSQL are fairly portable and written to a UNIX-like platform and API. That makes a big difference.

At any rate, it isn't just cross-polination of the actual code as much as developers who have experience implementing some of the more advanced features in PostgreSQL for example might be able to make contributions for MySQL, even if it might mean they have to write all new code, the concepts and knowledge they could transfer would still be valuable.

Is this a trend?

[Dungeon Dweller]

1) Are more people moving from their traditional licenses to the GPL? A lot of license bingo has been going on lately.

2) Differences between postgress and MySQL.

Well, now is a good time to start the debate, which do you like better and why? I like them both equally, but then again, I've only run MySQL in enterprise, how does postgress hold up to real strain?

Re:Is this a trend?

[Ray Dassen]

Differences between postgress and MySQL. [...] Well, now is a good time to start the debate

Could we talk about Interbase as well? Even though its source is not yet available, it is expected soon under an MPL-like license (the IPL).

Re:Is this a trend?

[tzanger]

Well, now is a good time to start the debate, which do you like better and why? I like them both equally, but then again, I've only run MySQL in enterprise, how does postgress hold up to real strain?

MySQL in enterprise?
How'd you do that without transaction support or are you doing the checks and balances in your code?

I've settled on Postgres because of the transaction issue and because I write my code so that most of the grunt work is done in the database. Why use your cgi to do the sort or the ordering when the database (supposedly) should be able to do it faster? Why use PHP to pick and choose the columns from a generalized select when your database is designed to pick and choose?

I like Postgres (7) because now I don't have to have shared libs to fake foreign keys. Data integrity is a big thing for me and MySQL doesn't seem to have a whole lot of support for it. Yeah it's fast as hell but how much faster than Postgres 6.5 or 7?

I've seen the benchmarks pitting Postgres and MySQL. What I'd like to see are these benchmarks performed with somewhat more "realistic" criteria. I don't do select a,b,c,d from mytable where a=whatever; -- my SQL statements are set up so that the bulk of the work is done by the database itself and the resultant data given back to my program is already ordered, sorted and formatted how I need so that all I have to do in the program is wrap it in HTML and spit it out.

I thought that was the whole idea behind using a database over a flat file or other "roll yer own" database setup?

While I'm on this mini rant, where are some real benchmarks between Perl (with and without mod_perl) and PHP (with and without Zend)? I really don't care if PHP can compute a FFT in 1/3 the time that Perl can; 99% of my cgi scripting is feeding and recieving data from a database connection or parsing some kind of human-readable input into something the machine can use, not doing heavy computations. What are the speed comparisions in a realistic situation?

Don't get me wrong -- I started out with PHP and gradually found myself using more and more Perl just because I could reuse my modules in my other (non-cgi) code. I found myself questioning my use of PHP every time I typed the <?php tag. It's not a good thing to mix code and content, which is pretty much the biggest advantage PHP has over Perl IMO. It makes it very easy to do exactly that.

If I wanted speed over all, I'd write in assembly or C and do the CGI that way. What real advantage does PHP have over Perl?

Re:Is this a trend?

[MonkeyMagic]

which do you like better and why?

Depends on the application.
If it's raw speed you need then mysql is the killer db. No doubt about it. This, I suspect is because it gives up some features in favour of speed (transactions may or may not be in this category). If you need some standard RDBMS features such as transactions then go to Postgres, which I'm not too familiar with.

Re:Is this a trend?

[AndroSyn]

2) Differences between postgress and MySQL.

1. postgreSQL support transactions and MySQL doesn't (at least not yet)
2. postgreSQL supports stored procedures take your pic of pl/perl, pl/pgsql, and pl/tcl to write them in.
3. postgreSQL supports finer grained locks on the database. MySQL only really supports locks on the table level.
4. postgreSQL has subselects and views.
5. Don't forget goodies like triggers and foreign keys.

Of course the trade off is that mysql tends to be a bit faster on reads and writes, but then again I've heard mysql described as a sql interface to a filesystem, so....

Re:Is this a trend?

[dpk]

...but then again I've heard mysql described as a sql interface to a filesystem, so....

In fact you are exactly correct. Mysql is an SQL frontend to a filesystem. This is an incredible advantage, however. For instance, Mysql is written such that the format of the tables is not linked to the syntax of the interface. IE - there are multiple different table types available, each with their own pros and cons. But all of them are accessed in the same way from the user end - via SQL.

• There are standard MyISAM tables which consist of 3 files in a binary portable format (index, data, and layout).
• There are heap tables which are binary trees resident only in memory (EXTREMEMLY fast, but rather temporary).
• And now there are Berkeley DB tables - which support transactions but are significantly slower than the other tables.
• 
  
  Unix/Linux is built on the premise that everything is a file, so it is rather ignorant to say that an SQL interface to a filesystem is a bad thing. Of course the database engine deals with things like locks, concurrency, threading, atomic operations, logging and more. But the real advantage here is if you want to create a new table type with your own design criteria, you can plug it right into the MySQL engine and boom - now you have an SQL interface, a Client Server app, a user security system, replication and more.

Re:Is this a trend?

[Rilke]

I'm not sure what the original poster meant by "enterprise", but the choice should really be based on your needs. Sure, some apps need SPs and transactions, and some really don't.

Take slashdot. I've never looked at the code, the DB needs are pretty simple. Keep track of the user names and passwords, and keep track of the threads and subjects. There's no real complicated joins or formatting required.

And data integrity, vis a vis transactions, just isn't important. Is somebody changing the moderation score on a topic while somebody else is accessing that topic? Who cares? So the moderation score of the thread won't match up. This isn't your checking account, the top line doesn't need to be consistent with the bottom line.

Lots of apps, even in the enterprise, fit MySQL's problem domain, and lots do not. Everyone compares MySQL to PostGres, but it's a bad comparison. If you need transactions or SPs, then you really need them, and using MySQL and trying to emulate these features in code is a very bad idea. If MySQL fits your needs, then it's blindingly fast and the best tool for the job. If those aren't your needs though, then you need something different.

PHP vs. Perl: I've seen both types of projects go to pieces. The problem with PHP is that you start with a lot of HTML and a little code, which makes PHP seem perfect, but over time you wind up with lots of code that isn't organized at all because it's embedded in all your HTML pages, which makes the code very hard to maintain.

Perl, of course, has the opposite problem. You start with a simple database app with very little formatting, which makes a mod_perl script perfect for the job, but over time you start to add bells and whistles to the user interface until you again wind up with your code and HTML totally interspersed, which again makes maintenance very difficult.

I'd love to see a really good book on code organization for the web. It's a very complex subject, and I generally feel like most of us are constantly re-inventing the wheel.

Re:Is this a trend?

[PigleT]

To answer two or so of your points:

I've got a perl script, running from commandline only atm and probably going to stay that way, that inserts lines from STDIN into a database. ATM this is running against PostgreSQL and with either 6.5 or 7.0, because I'm doing 1 select plus either an update or insert depending on the select results, performance is dead slow. In fact, it only gets about 30 rows / second inserted; most of this time Postmaster is stuck in 'D' state writing to disk with fsync() calls.
If I take the insert/update statements out altogether and just select for each line on STDIN, then it runs 8x faster. Perl is not the slowdown I thought it would be here!
(Yes, I'm using DBI, DBD::Pg and prepared SQL statements for a *reason*.)

As for advantages of PHP over perl: I don't know of any. PHP3 doesn't have any *consistent* DB interface to match DBI - I wrote some elementary benchmark things in both PHP3 and Perl, and you can tell me how much easier it was to change DBD::Pg into DBD::ODBC and stuff, than to go round renaming *all* the function calls for the different databases. D'oh. It comes down to interpreter speed and relative apache-module sizes and how integrated the script is with your HTML for what you want it to do.

What I want to do is play with Kawa a bit more... write Scheme, compile into java .class files .. run anyplace? Could be good, could be portable, could be optimizable...
~Tim
--
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,

Re:Is this a trend?

[Cardinal]

PHP vs. Perl: I've seen both types of projects go to pieces. The problem with PHP is that you start with a lot of HTML and a little code, which makes PHP seem perfect, but over time you wind up with lots of code that isn't organized at all because it's embedded in all your HTML pages, which makes the code very hard to maintain.

This is, of course, not a shortcoming of PHP. This is what happens when a project is started with no preconception of scope, design, or modularity. In any web application, regardless of language, content and code should never be mixed beyond what is necessary for connecting the data with the layout. PHP can be very good at this. Java Servlets can't, which is why we have JSP. ColdFusion can't, because it's nothing but markup (In other words, CF is like JSP without servlets to back it up. But CF is going to become a set of custom JSP tags in the near future, so it's all good.)

If you've written a handful of PHP scripts that are mostly HTML, and later become mostly PHP, you didn't think ahead (Or your bosses didn't think ahead.. :) ) The bulk of the PHP code should've been seperated out into objects, functions, or utility scripts from the very beginning. A good habit is to always do this, regardless of how small a project starts out as. Even if the project is small, the code can be reused much easier if it's seperate to begin with (Which you noted as a reason you were moving away from PHP towards Perl. Again, this isn't a shortcoming of PHP, it's a lack of planning).

Re:Is this a trend?

[Jason Earl]

If insert time is critical (it was for me too), you can always turn off the fsync() calls with a simple -F flag in your postmaster call. If you then insert your rows in one transaction they will insert "much" quicker. In fact, if you aren't already using a single transaction perhaps that alone would give you the speed up that you need.

If you do turn off the calls fsync() remember to get a good UPS, as a power-outage in the wrong spot could net you a inconsistent database.

Re:Is this a trend?

[Rilke]

But even with transactions, it's the kind of decision you need to make all the time.

Take the classic storefront. The price of an item shouldn't change between the "look over your order" and the "submit order" function. Depending on the business rules, the price may or may not change while it sits in your shopping cart during a single session. But I definitely don't care if an unselected item changes price on you between sessions. And I also probably don't care if the item description changes slightly even while the item sits in your cart.

"Don't care" sounds like a loaded term, but all it means is that the piece of information is volatile or atomic. On slashdot, let's say the DB goes down as I'm changing my userinfo. It just doesn't matter if my slashboxes change while my thread prefs didn't. If each piece of information is atomic in nature, then there's no reason for a transaction to group them together.

It's not being lax, it's just identifying your business rules correctly.

Re:Is this a trend?

[Ian Bicking]

The problem with PHP is that you start with a lot of HTML and a little code, which makes PHP seem perfect, but over time you wind up with lots of code that isn't organized at all because it's embedded in all your HTML pages, which makes the code very hard to maintain.

Perl, of course, has the opposite problem. You start with a simple database app with very little formatting, which makes a mod_perl script perfect for the job, but over time you start to add bells and whistles to the user interface until you again wind up with your code and HTML totally interspersed, which again makes maintenance very difficult.

I realize now that the design encouraged by Zope helps this. You can put most of your logic in External Methods -- Python files, which return Python objects -- and put the display logic in DTML (which is analogous to PHP, embedding Python in HTML).

You really need to have scripting on both sides (backend and display). The reason we define such a thing as "backend" is exactly so that we can reuse code. The display needs scripting, because reusable code doesn't output objects ready for display, because (by definition) ready for display is defined by the display.

I hadn't really thought about this duality much before, but now that I have I think I'll be more careful about how I make these distinctions.
--

Re:Is this a trend?

[adamsc]

Don't get me wrong -- I started out with PHP and gradually found myself using more and more Perl just because I could reuse my modules in my other (non-cgi) code. I found myself questioning my use of PHP every time I typed the PHP's real advantage is the tighter focus on web development - having developed in both, PHP is much faster to create web pages with simply because things which are useful for web developers tend to be built in commands. OTOH, PHP is less well suited for non-web scripting (e.g. I use Perl for system automation tasks). None of this prevents properly modular code as both languages have the ability to pull in code from external files and they both have component libraries, although PHP's PEAR is definitely not at the level of CPAN yet.

Lastly, PHP is commonly accepted as easier to learn than Perl. I certainly don't miss the more contrived bits of Perl syntax, particularly when you have to worry about supporting code where someone else [mis]used them.

__

The best part...

[Gothmolly]

Is that Yahoo! quotes CmdrTaco on the press release!
Go Slashdot!

Re:The best part...

[trcooper]

Is that Yahoo! quotes CmdrTaco on the press release!

That's a company press release from VA Linux, so it's not too surprising, seeing that Andover.net "owns" /. and VA owns Andover...

Yahoo just posts the press releases, they don't write them.

What MySQL Has Going For It . . .

[Seumas]

Is mostly that it's one of those things that, whether it's better or not, is used by most packages (such as Slashdot). Unless you're up for doing a re-write on your own, you're kind of stuck having to learn and handle MySQL. Not a completely bad thing, of course, but . . .

I'm in my infant stage of learning SQL and, at the urging of my geek comrades, have opted to focus on postgreSQL. This keeps me from playing with a lot of cool stuff that's out there and really only supports MySQL right now. It'd be nice to see both of the packages be robust enough (and standard enough) that they can be easily substituted (or am I only thinking that it's harder than it is because of my lack of experience with it?)

Of course, 'robust' and 'standard' is often a slightly self-cancelling comparison, isn't it?
---
seumas.com

Ironically...

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

Why is it that the moment MySQL goes GPL'd, Slashdot (which runs on MySQL) goes belly-up? I hope it isn't a refutation of ESRs panacea argument...

8^)
--

Re:Ironically...

[Seumas]

It might not have been do to their SQL server.
It might have been the VA boxes they're running on. *cough*

runs and hides under a table to avoid the hurling of rotten fruit
---
seumas.com

all of /. is GPLed

[grammar nazi]

Now every component of Slashcode is under the GPL. That's pretty cool. I can finally release a SlashLinux distro!!!

Re:all of /. is GPLed

[Sludge]

Add the following two lines to your sblock.ini if you're a junkbuster user (internet.junkbuster.com):

images.slashdot.org
(at the bottom...)
~images.slashdot.org/topics

Re:License

[daviddennis]

It was some other license before, but they released some very old versions under the GPL.

D

----

Which one

[IPFreely]

MySQL vs PostgreSQL. That was the question.

speed vs. reliability....
...hmmmm...
speed vs. reliability....

Now which side of that arguement was I on again. I keep forgetting.

Re:Which one

[kzinti]

speed vs. reliability...

Speaking of reliability, what's been happening to Slashdot lately? I keep getting lots of Apache errors claiming the server is misconfigured. Reloading usually clears the error and loads the page. Sometimes Slashdot isn't responding at all. Last week response was so slow that I thought maybe another DoS attack was underway. What's the deal, Rob?

--Jim

What does this do to the finances of TCX?

[daviddennis]

I was under the impression that the main reason mySQL wasn't under the GPL was that their business plan involved selectively selling the product for profit (instead of mandatorily allowing it to be given away as per the GPL).

I wonder how much they were paid, since I'd like to see them do well. It seems odd that they would give up a previously profitable strategy - maybe someone else can enlighten me on the probable financial picture? I'm much curious.

D

----

Re:What does this do to the finances of TCX?

[Mark F. Komarinski]

The article indicates that LNUX gave TCX a bunch of money and wants to develop the service/support side of MySQL.

Sounds like LNUX effectively bought MySQL, but is allowing TCX to convert to a pay-for-support-or-special-stuff company. (You make MySQL GPL, we give you cash).

Yay VA Linux!

Re:What does this do to the finances of TCX?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

They couldn't make money on their e-commerce sales of MySQL. See they ran their database on MySQL and due to the lack of transactions all the orders got hosed. :)

Re:What does this do to the finances of TCX?

[daviddennis]

I don't know about that, my company has now processed thousands of orders using mySQL-based ordering system I wrote with nary a glitch.

D

----

Re:License

[warfare]

The License wasn't GPL. If you used MySQL to build a commercial product, you had to pay license fees, AFAIR.

There is another...

[webmaven]

The 'free-as-in-speech' RDBMS arena has another contender, Interbase.

While it is licensed under the IPL (an MPL derived license) and not the GPL, it is nevertheless a free software RDBMS.

This three-way race should prove interesting.
--

Killer Apps.

[Forge]

I spoke about this in 1998. Back then there really were no half way decent free SQL databases. I contended that any such database would eventually rise to the quality of Oracle.

Now we will finally get to see what happens when a SQL back end is under the GPL and useable for real work. My guess is that it will accelerate the way the Kernel and KDE have. I suspect it will be so but "the community" has a chance to prove me wrong.

Let's see how many Free Software hackers go to bat with this one. Let's see how many people fix that infamous Memory leak or add those extra features ( There probably is a reason for Oracle to be as big as the E-Smith distribution )

Will MySQL become as much of a killer app as Linux is becoming? Only time will tell. My bet is on the free code.

Re:Killer Apps.

[Azog]

The company I work for is currently using MySQL and Apache on BSD, but is switching to Oracle on Solaris (but keeping Apache). Why?

Well, the killer feature for us is actually the Oracle support for database synchronization. We need automatic, reliable, and highly configurable ways to keep some tables in many large databases synchronized, over the internet. (Actually, a virtual private network.) Oracle's transaction support is nice, but not actually that important for our application.

Fortunately, PHP works well with Oracle, so our smaller back-end tools won't need to be extensively rewritten. I do hope that MySQL gets good distributed database support soon - I'm sure it will happen eventually.

Another random thought just occurred to me: Would there be any use in creating a MySQL module for Apache? Or an integrated PHP/MySQL module? Perhaps for large websites using the common Apache+PHP+MySQL architecture there could be a speed improvement.


Torrey Hoffman (Azog)

Re:Killer Apps.

[jslag]

Would there be any use in creating a MySQL module for Apache? Or an integrated PHP/MySQL module? Perhaps for large websites using the common Apache+PHP+MySQL architecture there could be a speed improvement.

Large sites typically have the database and webserver on completely different machines, so throwing one set of processes in the other would be rather counterproductive.

----------------

uh-oh

[Gothmolly]

Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, pater@slashdot.org and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. Apache/1.3.12 Server at slashdot.org Port 80

License under windows?

[mu_cow]

You always had to pay for mysql under Micro$oft operating systems. Will the windows source base be GPL'd too? If it is not, I take it the GPL would allow someone else to port the *nix code?

I know the average slashdot user hates windows, but a lot of people still use it.

Re:License under windows?

[slim]

Sure, it could be done, but why bother?

Most Windows users seem to prefer non-free software. Even if it's free-beer, they seem to prefer it to be warez.

So let them use Access or MS SQL Server -- if they wanted to use free software, they'd be using a free OS, right?
--

Re:License under windows?

[tweek]

i think the reason for this, as someone else has pointed out, was that the developers had to BUY an OS just to port the product and the fee was related to that.

Re:License under windows?

[BubbaFett]

Being unfortunate enough not to be the server admin, the server I use is indeed running Windows. I managed to get MySQL on it and I am grateful that a Windows version does exist.

According to the MySQL press release, "One of the biggest news is that the Windows version of MySQL is now also distributed under the GPL license." So can I get those 200 Euros reimbursed? :-)

This is good for Slash

[Lita Juarez]

This is a very interesting development. Although it is fun to knock VA Linux around here, I have found the professionalism which VA and Andover have brought to the development of the Slash code to be refreshing. I may be wrong on this, but I think that Pudge is employed on a full-time basis by VA/Andover to maintain the Slash code, and Pudge's input to Slash has worked wonders. Updates to Slash are now released regularly, and I have found Slash to be remarkably easy to install, configure and maintain. Slash is certainly no longer the fearsome monster that Rob used to portay it as on the Slashdot code page

Considering mySQL is an integral part of Slash, it is good that VA Linux have chosen to invest money in the development of mySQL. Not only is this repaying a debt to a piece of software which has made their biggest site (Slashdot) what it is today, but I can see that greater co-operation between the mySQL developers and the Slash developers may be good for those of us who run Slash sites. Perhaps a version of mySQL specially optimised for the peculiarities of Slash may arise from this co-operation.

I hope today's announcement will cause those members of the Slashdot community who view VA Linux as the Borg of the Linux world to think differently. VA are showing that the open source business model does work, despite what their detractors on Slashdot say.

Re:This is good for Slash

[chrisd]

It's not -just- pudge, although he rocks, of course. That's Pat Galbraith and a bunch of other engineers involved who deserve credit.

We are lucky to have them.

Chris DiBona
VA Linux Systems

--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG

Another article, less press-releasy ...

[timothy]

(Thanks to Jim)

Here's another, somewhat more informative story on this.

timothy

Re:Another article, less press-releasy ...

[daviddennis]

"Analagous to a low-end Microsoft SQL server"?

Humph.

Since the whole philosophy of the thing is radically different from SQL Server, I can't say I like that description - especially for a publication that claims to be Linux-aware.

D

----

So what?

[Grim Metamoderator]

The real issue here isn't GPL or non-GPL, but that relational databases fundamentally suck. You need too many tables to handle complex relationships well, and you take too much of a performance hit if you implement proper validation mechanisms.

What I really want is a GPL'ed matrix database. You may not have heard of this, so I'll give a quick explanation. In a matrix database, you set up a Beowulf cluster and allow it to develop sentience, whereupon it takes over and imprisons all the humans in a virtual reality that people mistake for the real world. Anyone who starts to figure out what's going on is removed by special super-fast, unkillable "agents" who wear dark sunglasses for no particularly obvious reason. Now that's what I call a database!

And best of all, it doesn't run on Windows, because sentience can't evolve in an OS that crashes hourly (even if it did, it would commit suicide out of self-disgust).

Re:shut the heck up you friggin dork!!!

[hobbit]

Let me guess. You spend hours on IRC having conversations like this:

You: Hello.
HornyFem: Hello.
You: How are you?
HornyFem: Why do you ask how am I?
You: Just trying to make conversation.
HornyFem: Please continue.
You: I can't unless you talk as well!
HornyFem: Would you feel better if you could unless I talk as well?
You: You talk strange.
HornyFem: Please continue.

etc...

Hamish

subselects and stored procedures

[Galois]

I certainly hope the first order of business is to integrate subselects and stored procedures. Dealing with MySQL without these two is amazingly annoying, and cuts down on the ability to port code from other Datbases.

Now if we can just get all the open source developers out there to learn how to set up database architecture, we'll be all set.
- daniel

Re:BSD

[kevin lyda]

i see what you're saying, and on some levels i agree with it but...

linux has more users then bsd. that doesn't make it better, but it's not correct to say otherwise.

linux and *bsd are pretty compatible.

the original comment compared licenses, not operating systems. in this case the gpl and bsd. the gpl has been around for quite some time and solves some problems that the bsd license had: namely free software would disappear. companies would take bsd licensed s/w and lock it up.

Re:Win32 Binaries also? - YES - here's the quote

[evilandi]

web.mysql.com/news/article-22.html

One of the biggest news is that the Windows version of MySQL is now also distributed under the GPL license.

Finally, the Win32 version of MySQL is completely free. This makes it the only free (as in both) industrial-strength database on the Windoze platform AFAIK.

So I now have even more ammo to get my boss to ban Microsoft Access and SQL Server from our office!

Does anyone know how to use this from Active Server Pages (ASP)? ODBC driver I guess, right?

--

Not "it's better"

[Dungeon Dweller]

I didn't mean, "It's better," what I mean is, people have been using it for a long time, a lot of senior people who make decisions have used it on their machines. It's more commonly used in universities than Linux (IE, at WVU, we use SysV with the BSD compat package installed). I didn't mean, "Gee, BSD is great." I meant, "Gee, BSD has been around for a long time, and is used a lot more than people say it is."

Re:BSD

[Golias]

Sounds like you are trying to have two arguments at once: Linux vs. *BSD UNIX, and GPL vs. BSD licensing. One is a technical debate, the other is a financial debate (or a moral debate, if RMS is to be taken seriously).

Either one could result in a bloody Holy War, so I don't think I'm going to enter the fray.

Oh Yeah

[Dungeon Dweller]

I meant to make that a comment on the amount of stuff released under it, and that a lot of people like that part of the license. Personally, I like to think that I could release some prelim version of my code, get people using it, a free release, and still use my code in a commercial form as well, and allow the source to be open. I kind of like the feature that lets me make closed software (not a popular POV around here, I know). Of course, other people can too, which isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

mSQL

[volsung]

They released older versions (called mSQL) under the GPL. Now they are going to release the current version under the GPL instead of their "free, unless you try to sell a product based on it" license.

Re:BSD

[SimonK]

OpenBSD installs are secure by default, whereas most other OSes (including Linux) aim to be featureful by default. Thus there is less scope with OpenBSD for admins to accidentally enable services they don't understand or which contain security flaws. Admins prefer it that way, and part of being a good admin is knowing when this is likely to be a good idea. This approach is better than relying on the admin (even where that is yourself) to reconfigure the machine into a secure setup which is error prone and takes time.

Even a "crappy" admin who installs a vanilla OpenBSD is in a better position than one who installs a vanilla Linux, since lots of work has been doen for them.

Similarly OpenBSD code is audited for security in a fairly formal way, and this is very valuable. Far too much code in standard Linux and *BSD distributions still has simple secutrity flaws like buffere overuns (though it is improving).

Does this mean...

[IGnatius T Foobar]

...that we now have to call it GNU/MySQL?

<grin>

Seriously though, this can only be a good thing. MySQL is uniquely positioned to become a "category killer" in the world of free databases, as long as some of the features people have been requesting are added (such as transactions). The placement of MySQL in the GPL world means that open source programmers will not hesitate to put lots of contributions into it.

I'm aware that they were previously dual-licensing it, with the new version as not-quite-free and an older version as GPL, but that tends to ruffle some feathers in the free software community. This is much better. I hope Aladdin Systems is paying attention and does the same thing with GhostScript.
--

Re:Win32 Binaries also? - YES - here's the quote

[LetterJ]

Use MyODBC available at http://www.mysql.com/download_myodbc.html .

This new license frees me up. I've been working on a book on building intranets with PHP and I wanted the code to be cross platform, but PostgreSQL doesn't come in binary form for Windows, Access/MSSQL weren't available for UNIX, MySQL had a restrictive license for Windows. Now I can use MySQL with no problems. Woohoo.

LetterJ

Yes, mod_adbanners has been released too

[Kurt Gray]

Andover's ad delivery system is GPL'ed too. Available for download here.

There is no comparison

[Moderation abuser]

PosgreSQL is by far the more advanced database engine. No question. MySQL is by far the faster of the two.

The reason that MySQL is by far the faster is that PosgreSQL is by far the more advanced.

If you try to make MySQL as advanced as PostgreSQL you will slow it down to the point where it is no faster.

Stop trying to compare them. They do DIFFERENT JOBS.

Re:There is no comparison

[phred]

Define "advanced."

Go ahead, I dare you.

-------

Re:There is no comparison

[Moderation abuser]

It'll never be as fast as MySQL unless the MySQL guys start building all sorts of additional functionality in.

I'd rather have the option.

Troll Tech next! We could have QT under the GPL!

[Deven]

Would be great if VA Linux would invest into Troll Tech to make the same thing happen with QT. This would be another boost to Linux and Free Software & make everyone happy.

Agreed. This is a great trend to see -- Linux companies using their newfound market power to get more software released under the GPL! MandrakeSoft did it with the Bochs PC emulator, now VA Linux with MySQL. (I don't know if Red Hat has done this, but they've funded GNOME development quite a bit.) It's that "rising tide" thing; the more of this we see, the better it is for everyone.

Troll Tech should be next. Seriously, there is a lot of demand for QT despite license headaches; if QT were under the GPL, it would be a Good Thing (tm). Perhaps Red Hat, VA Linux and other Linux vendors could join forces to do more of this, starting with QT. (I might suggest Motif also, but that may not be viable.)

As an aside, could we have a bit less license proliferation? Does every open-source software release really need a custom license with slight variations on existing ones? (I think I'd like to see GPL/MPL dual-licensing become the norm, unless the GPL is modified to be compatible with the MPL...)

Do these two statements seem strange together?

[The Wookie]

So I now have even more ammo to get my boss to ban Microsoft Access and SQL Server from our office!

Does anyone know how to use this from Active Server Pages (ASP)? ODBC driver I guess, right?

what htis means to the average joe tech

[geekd]

This is really great.

It used to be that MySQL was free for use, but you couldn't sell it. That meant that if I was to consult for a business, and set up an infrastucture for them, I could use Linux, Apache and MySQL, but if I was charging them money (and of course I am) then I would have to pay MySQL.

Now I don't have to pay MySQL. So I (or any enterprising tech) can hire themselves out to set up a company's IT infrastucture and NOT PAY A CENT TO ANYONE FOR SOFTWARE.

This will speed adoptions of completely GPLed networks and backends, as well as further help the budding cottage industry of freelance IT consultants.

Why is this important, other that we can make more money now?

Supporting the "cottage industry" tech consultants is what got Microsoft where it it today. I am seeing more and more parallels between MS programmers/network consultant of 5 years ago and Linux-Open Source programmers/network consultants today.

The geeks tell the "dumb" suits what to use. Win over the geeks (as MS did in the early 90's) and you win over the suits, eventually.

"But the suits demand MS products!" you say. Well, back in the day, the suits demanded IBM. But the MS won out eventually, and Linux/Apache/MySQl will too. We are already halfway there.

We already had alot of reasons to push MySQL, now we have one more - it saves us money!

-geekd

Mysql DOES SUPPORT TRANSACTIONS

[frankie_guasch]

Here is the documentation about how to use it.

This is beta right now but this is for real.

In a word: NOTHING

[tuffy]

Haven't you noticed the "open" part of open source? If VA goes down the tubes, MySQL remains open and anybody can continue to help in the development. In addition, there's nothing preventing anybody (not just VA employees) from working full-time to replicate an open-sourced project for their own aims - but why? Why would an entity, commercial or otherwise, want to spend any amount of time and effort to reinvent a wheel being given away for free as it is? By virtue of the original being free, there's no financial gain from it since the original will remain free.

In short, why should anybody worry about their project being stolen when they're already giving it away to anyone who wants it? When it comes to privacy policy, I'd be much more worried about annoying spam and the like, really.

Your facts may be correct, but your speculations lack logic.

Re:In a word: NOTHING

[tuffy]

Your reasoning for why VA would usurp projects continues to elude me. If a project becomes very successful, thus generating more traffic, and thus more banner ad clicks, why would VA bother to push it in their own direction and splinter the user base? Wouldn't a more logical reaction be to promote the project or add resources to it, thus making it even more popular and thus generate even more banner ad clicks?

Yes, VA is not a charity. But trying to somehow "take over" the existing free projects is neither feasible, profitable or rational. Nor have I seen any actual evidence that they might do so.

Re:In a word: NOTHING

[Ian Bicking]

What do you envision the problem with VA being? Explain the most manipulative turn VA could take with regards to Sourceforge.

Whatever danger you perceive, I (and tuffy, I think) just don't see it. Your speculation will have to be a little more concrete.
--

Re:In a word: NOTHING

[chrisd]

VA Does in fact have such a department. It contains:

• Chris DiBona (Me)
• 
  Joe Arruda
  Kit Cosper
  Josh Freeman
  

And two others. This doesn't include the 200+ employees who came -directly- from lugs, users groups, and oss projects. So, yeah, we care.

I assure you that we care very much about VA's ability to make money. We like money. Money buys stuff. But money and helping linux continue to grow and prosper are not mutually exclusive and is what we do here.

As far as immunity, if someone puts a copy of the source code to solaris, you think that we want to accept the liability that person has invited upon him or herself? Hell no. Also, you don't seem appreciate the projects we host and have gotten the angry lawyer calls about. I'm just waiting for the freenet call. When Livid was hosted here on our network, I sent out an email to the guy telling him we would not pull the software without a court order. The AAC decoder has already gotten us a call from Dolby labs, luckily they had released teh very code they were -yelling- at us to pull down themselves into the public domain.

We put a -hell- of a lot of work into sourceforge, but we're not going to be everyone's lawyer, we expect that project leads are well able to take care of their own legal issues. We don't take ownership of their code, why should be accept thier liabilities?

So there is your answer, if you'll take the time to understand it.

If anyone cares about what Bowie is babbiling about with regard to ocmmunity.themes.org, it's been detailed here on slashdot often enough. Just look for my or bowies post on the topic.

Chris DiBona
VA Linux Systems

--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG

Re:BSD

[Jason Earl]

The BSD style licenses make sense if you are using someone else's code as they allow you to make your own proprietary changes and they allow you to borrow code and put it in your closed source software. In other words, BSD style licenses are great if you are not the primary author.

If you are the primary author, and especially if you have a product like MySQL which already has a large user base, the GPL makes more sense. Why is that, you ask? It's quite simple. The GPL will guarantee that none of your competitors "borrow" your coolest features and incorporate them into their closed software. Basically anyone who uses your code will have to give you a copy of their enhancements. This is good. Your competitors don't have to share under the BSD style licenses. You can even release your very own enhancements under a closed source commercial license. After all, you hold the copyright, and dual licensing allows you the best of both worlds. People that want to use the free version are stuck with the conditions of the GPL and people who want to produce commercial versions have to pay you money to get a version under a different license. If you make your contributors sign their copyrights over to you on their improvements then you can release the product under as many different licenses as your lawyers and accountants dream up. And your users they will want to do this because they probably don't want to go through the trouble of tracking your changes to the codebase to make sure their patches still work.

Cygnus showed how this sort of development guarantees that it is difficult for a competitor to co-opt "your" GPLed application. Since the creators of MySQL have access to all of the enhancements that might be made, and have more expertise in the software than anyone else, it should be a trivial matter for them to maintain their status as official MySQL maintainer. That would then in turn guarantee that they get the bulk of the contracts for MySQL support, maintenance, and extension. That is potentially a very large market.

In short, this is almost certainly not a question of whether or not BSD is better than Linux or visa versa. It is about the promotion of MySQL without losing precious intellectual value to competitors or spawning an incompatible closed source commercial version from one of MySQL's competitors based on MySQL code.

To give you an idea of why this might be important take a look at MySQL's primary open source competitor PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is under a BSD style license. This means that the MySQL folks can borrow as much PostgreSQL code as they please. On the other hand the PostgreSQL folk can't borrow MySQL code and combine it with their BSD licensed code without release their entire project under the GPL! Since they are unlikely to want to do this, the MySQL will remain off limits to them. This could give the MySQL folks a distinct advantage in the upcoming horserace. Being able to borrow BSD code certainly never hurt Linux.

mysql to Oracle (plug)

[totierne]

I work in the Migration Technology Group at Oracle. We are working on mysql to Oracle migration.

Oracle 8.1.6 for linux is currently is oracles top download.

What else should we be doing in the linux/open source area?

Our product (Oracle Migration Workbench, free from Oracle Technology Network ) currently runs on windows but can migrate, SQLserver, Sybase and Access to Oracle on Linux (using Oracle networking connectivity), we are working on SQLAnywhere and mysql (next up is Informix) we may do Postgress if there is demand. There are other facilities for migration, e.g. Oracle transparent gateways and flat files for data migration (imported to Oracle using sqlldr), and some unsupported toolkits/migration documentation on OTN. Data from oracle on other platforms can be transfered to Oracle on Linux using exp and imp (shipped with Oracle server).

totierne@hotmail.com

example: GreatBridge will be supporting PostgreSQL

[cpeterso]

Great Bridge is to PostgreSQL as Red Hat is to Linux. They will offer support contracts and also fund (some?) future development of PostgreSQL.

Re:BSD

[Jason Earl]

It's not hypocrisy at all. The GPL people believe that you shouldn't be able to ship binaries without source code. The BSD people believe that there should be no restrictions on binaries made from their source. The only thing keeping the BSD people from "borrowing" GPLed software is that they are not interested in abiding by the GPL precepts that require that source code be available with the binaries.

You can't hardly blame the GPL folks if they are willing to take the BSD folks up on their word. After all, it is the BSD style licenses that specifically allow you to re-license the software under more restrictive terms. Commercial software developers are perfectly free to take the software and release a closed source product derived from it. Why shouldn't the GPL folks be allowed to take the software and include it in their GPLed software? After all, GPLed software is just like commercial software except you have the right to source code.

The fact of the matter is that anyone can "borrow" GPLed code, they just have to release the source code when they are done. This isn't hypocrisy. It's what the FSF stands for.

Re:This will be great.

[dragonfly_blue]

Nah, I was being too hard on them... I think they did a big site changeover today and I just caught them at a bad time.

I did download some docs, they have been helpful.

QPL basically *IS* GPL

[Eric Green]

What puzzles me is why Troll Tech even bothered with the latest version of the QPL. If you read it, it pretty much *IS* the GPL, with a few bits of added fluff to make sure that Troll Tech gets their credit (e.g., nobody can sell a modified version of QT and call it QT).

GPL or QPL, either way, it's the same problem -- you can't use it to write commercial software. Not without buying a commercial license from Troll Tech anyhow. Which is not a big deal at the moment, if you're a commercial company...

-E

MSDE is also free

[Otis_INF]

Microsoft's MSDE is also a total free database. it's a database engine that acts like SQLserver and ment for developers, but you can run it as a database for normal usage, and avoid evil access databases.
--

Re:BSD

[Jason Earl]

Once again, the GPL proponents (at least the ones with two neurons to rub together) do not object to others using their code. They merely object to others using their code without sharing. To this end they have crafted a license that requires that the source code be available if you are distributing binaries.

The BSD proponents, on the other hand, are concerned about maintaining the right to distribute binaries without source. They usually put it in terms that aren't quite as crass, but that is essentially the difference. As you can no doubt see the two goals are at odds. One camp is trying to guarantee source code availability and one is trying guarantee the right to deny source code.

The hypocrisy is that the BSD advocates don't mind one bit if you borrow their code and put it into a commercial product, but they get all upset when you put the same code into a GPLed product. Both uses are equally legal, and if your primary goal is sharing source code the GPLed version is infinitely more acceptable.

The only reason that the GPL would be unacceptable is if you wanted to use bits to build software that you weren't going to share. In other words if you were hypocritical about sharing your software you would want to make sure that it was all BSD licensed. If you were convinced that sharing source was the answer then the GPL is just as good (if not better).

Either way it makes little difference to the developers of MySQL. They have realized, and rightly so, that no one would be interested in their product if it was just another closed piece of commercial software. They have also realized that the GPL allows them to increase the circulation and useage of MySQL while at the same time maintaining control the development of MySQL.

Quite frankly the GPL is the best of both worlds for them. The people who use MySQL will be able to continue to do so. The people who distribute MySQL for them will have new opportunities to do so. And yet their competitors will not be able to steal their IP (without sharing anyway). They can even release versions licensed under a commercial license for people who don't want to abide by the GPL and who are willing to pay for the privilege. You can't do that with the BSD style licenses.

There is nothing hypocritical about any of this. It's simply a practical matter. I suppose that if you don't like it you can always use PostgreSQL. I do.

Re:So, when VA goes bankrupt, what happens to MySQ

[chrisd]

Hi all, Hi Bowie...

In response:

1: VA has been very clear since our road show that we intend to show profitability in 2001. The reason that we are not profitable is that we have been spending our cash to expand so that we can effectively compete. That is -why- companies go public and take in investment. If you don't think we are a good investment, then don't invest in us, I'm okay with that. Our investment in MySQL is part of what made the gpling of mysql possible, but again, it's not clear you want to understand this. I'm also okay with this.

2: Yep, I'm aware of this, and the lawyers are working on it. But just because SF doesn't have a privacy policy in place doesn't mean that we can repeal the GPL. So chill. I think you are also intimating that we are going to rip people's software off and do our own...I don't really understand your complaint, I suppose. If we take code and create new oss software from it, that's okay. You do know how the GPL and BSD licences work, right?

As far as stock price and such goes, people are going to sell, people are going to buy, that's what happens in a market.

So there you go.

Chris DiBona
VA Linux Systems

--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG

BSD vs. Public Domain

[gwalla]

I'm probably missing something, but can anyone explain how the BSD license differs from public domain? In both cases, anyone may take the work and make it proprietary.

---
Zardoz has spoken!

Re:So, when VA goes bankrupt, what happens to MySQ

[Bowie J. Poag]

Ha, interesting -- I didn't know LWN got gobbled up. Thanks for the heads up.


Bowie J. Poag

Re:Good! The hate is swelling in you now...

[Bowie J. Poag]

Why not? I could quite happily be a thorn in VA's side until they own up to what they did to us. Rather than do that, they protect their corporate image by sicking DiBona and VA's Department of Caring on anything bad to say about the company. Can you blame them? You don't have to be involved, really...so why do you even care what is said either way?

If you don't like me, dont follow what i'm doing. If you dont like my work, dont use it. Don't believe me? No problem -- You're not obligated to even listen. The only "sinking" here comes from people who don't have enough stones to call VA's practices into question.



Bowie J. Poag

ASP under UNIX, no problem

[evilandi]

www.chilisoft.com

ASP under UNIX. Ho yuss.

The Plan:

• Stage 1: We move from SQL Server to to MySQL
• Stage 2: We move from WinNT to Unix

I mean, I love PERL. And I kinda see how I ought to get into PHP. But ASP is a lot easier to pick up.

Also, speaking as a manager, ASP programmers are a lot cheaper (you can even train up dirt cheap Visual Basic programmers who are a penny a dozen).

--

Re:Good! The hate is swelling in you now...

[chrisd]

Actually, we're fine with you saying nasty things about us, I just don't think that telling the truth is your forte.

You're statement that we are going to steal peoples oss ideas are laughable. You do -not- understand the GPL to any degree. It's all about stealing everyone elses ideas and code to create new ideas and code without reworking. The GPL recognizes that ideas are worthless without the implementation. The GPL makes implementing already discovered and new ideas easier.

Not that you care, but as far as your petulant cries about me and my department of addressing you: The only reason I post to reply to your emails is so that reasonable people who read slashdot can know the truth about VA and the way we do things.

Honestly, we'd love to make peace with any of our detractors including you, but we feel that it would be a complete waste of time with you, as you are acting unreasonably.

Chris DiBona
VA Linux Systems

--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG

Re:Slightly offtopic question...

[webmaven]

This is a clarification that stems from the fact that the english word 'free' has two meanings, so that when you say 'free software' you clarify which meaning you are promoting.

The first meaning is "free as in 'free beer'", refers to getting an item for no monetary cost.

The second meaning "free as in 'free speech'" refers to freedoms and liberties granted by custom or law.

These phrases are usually shortened to 'free-as-in-beer' and 'free-as-in-speech'.

While there is a lot of software that can be had for no cost, Netscape plugins for example, you are usually not free to modify it for your own purposes.

I hope this helps clarify the issue for you.

Further information can be found at The Debian website, The Free Software Foundation, and Eric S. Raymond's site.
--

Re:Good! The hate is swelling in you now...

[chrisd]

Boy, before the sarcasm tag, you had it right, oh well...

I am of course working on what I was told to me by trae and the rest. Those guys aren't talking because they've already talked with you and put their views before the world to see.

I am -not- paid by VA to lie or say things that I an ethically uncomfortable with. I have spent the last 2 years of my life building the company with the rest of the people here. I have hired or caused to be hired probably about 60 people. I hired trae, who hired tony. I interviewed Brian. I don't lie, I don't have to. If someone does something here at VA that pisses me off, they fix it or they convince me that it's the right thing to do. (Or I do more drastic things)

So if I tell you I'm interested in making peace, I am not lying. My ethics didn't go out the window just because VA went public. If VA was that kind of company do you think that you'd still have an account on /.? Don't you ever see the paradox in your saying that VA is an evil ursurping company on a site owned by VA?

You talk about the abilty to clue me in. So answer me this, you told everyone here you were developing a GTK widget repository, something that sourceforge was not designed to compete with. Is this true? You said you would "do some project hosting". Something which we were already doing and have been doing for five years. So where, tell me, did we do -you- wrong? Trae tells me that when he was talking to you about employment he asked to see the code you worked on for 7 months, and you had nothing to show him. That's what I know.

And , yes, there are people who have beefs with VA. That's going to happen. I'd love to make peace with them. But again, it is not possible to make peace with everyone. And I -do- have a personal beef with you, you are insulting the people who are my frends, and you are attacking a company that I love and had a strong hand in building. You call us assholes and the rest and say that I lie for an expedient paycheck. That's personal.

And ,all that said, your rant shows you do not understand, appreciate or grok the concepts of intellectual freedom behind the GPL. No one who does would ever not get the viral nature of the GPL. You can't co-opt (legally) GPL'd code into a proprietary product that you wish to redistribute. You know that, right? The way you talk about ideas make British Telecom and the MPAA look good.

Chris DiBona
VA Linux Systems.

--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG

Re:Good! The hate is swelling in you now...

[Bowie J. Poag]

In your reply, you said:I am of course working on what I was told to me by trae and the rest. Those guys aren't talking because they've already talked with you and put their views before the world to see.

This isn't true. I've repeatedly asked Tony Guntharp and Trae McCombs to compare notes, going back as far as November '99. Never got a straight answer out of either of them. Contrary to your claim, neither of them have "put their views before the world to see". You're paid to do their work for them. Thats your job.

You also said:

"> My ethics didn't go out the window just because VA went public. If VA was that kind of company do you think that you'd still have an account on /.? "

Malda told me in an email not too long ago that he was feeling some pressure to do just that several times. It would be sort of stupid of you, because it would prove everything i've been trying to say in the first place. As for complaining about VA on a site OWNED by VA, where the hell else is there to go? Linux.com? Nope, VA owns that. Freshmeat? Nope, VA owns that too. Good luck.

And, you later said:
"So answer me this, you told everyone here you were developing a GTK widget repository, something that sourceforge was not designed to compete with. Is this true? You said you would "do some project hosting"."

We were clear with Trae from the beginning. We were attemping to unite the developers under one umbrella. We were going to do that by offering a giant component stockpile for GTK & QT developers. Music, graphics, soundbites, code, the works. Read the interview I did with Linux.com in November '99 if you don't believe me, its all there in black and white. In exchange for developers adopting our work, we would offer them free hosting space for their projects. Once we had amassed enough support, we felt that we would have been enough of an assett to VA that they would hire us. This was the entire reason I agreed to begin work on the project in the first place. 500,000 pageviews sustained for 6 months straight would guarantee me a position at VA, Trae claimed. Later I found out that Trae is NOT in a position to make such offers, and he had done this sort of thing to a number of people, and burned a number of people.

If you were VA, why would you bother to wait for a group of volunteers to do the work, when you could just as easilly put some of your own guys on the task 9 to 5? Why hire a dozen new people when you can do it with 3 that you've already got?

Now you know why Tony Guntharp doesn't talk, and Trae McCombs doesn't talk.

Keep trying Chris, you're starting to get it, I think.

Bowie J. Poag

Re:BSD

[SimonK]

I've never seen a Linux distro as well locked down as OpenBSD. If you know of one, please let me know. When I refer to "Vanilla" Linux, I mean one of the more-or-less standard distributions (RedHat, Slackware, Debian, Mandrake, etc), which in terms of what they install and turn on are all much the same.

OTOH hand, this goes deeper than simply what functions are available in a default install. Its a whole design philosophy, which goes beyond what an admin can control. The GNU tools and the Linux kernel (if you build the whole thing, as most distros come just now) have a *lot* of functionality in them, as do many of the server demons commonly used with Linux. OpenBSD have generally resisted the inclusion of new features in the kernel, utilities and networking demons, preferring to restrict themselves to the existing, thoroughly audited and well understood code base.

Re:Good! The hate is swelling in you now...

[Bowie J. Poag]

Neither of those discuss anything regarding the reason why ColdStorage was mysteriously shitcanned out of nowhere, and what communication Guntharp or McCombs had with Brian Biles. Until that is settled, the song remains the same.



Bowie J. Poag

Re:Good! The hate is swelling in you now...

[fusion94]

Bowie,
I don't talk because quite honestly I've nothing to say to you. I've stated publicly before about this matter and yet you contunue to call me a liar, a cheat and a thief. I've got nothing to say to you anymore as I have better things to do.