Novell Releases PostgreSQL for NetWare

An anonymous reader writes "Ever since Oracle announced they wouldn't port 9i to NetWare, Novell has been scrambling to find an enterprise-capable DB. Now it looks like they're settling on PostgreSQL. This follows their decision to ship Apache as the default web server for NetWare 6. Linux aficionados might sneer at an old workhorse like NetWare, but it's got more than 80 million client licenses worldwide, and it ain't going anywhere anytime soon."

Comments

Novel needs to do this ..

[oh]

I'm posing from a Novel site right now. Everyone here seems to be happy with netware for the most part. It works well with the corperate desktop (yes its windows), and like all OS' when its well maintained is pretty stable. The NDS tree had all the functionality that this site needs long before Microsoft's Active Directory was released.

The only reason anyone talks about moving away from Netware is application support. This porting of Open Source apps is a good thing for Novel. If they can ship enough applications, then people won't migrate away from Netware, and if they can increase market share then more people will develop on their platform.

This could also be a good thing for Open Source. With a new group of profesional developers working on the code they could make progress on those features that the Open Source product may be lacking. They will fix bugs.

If they are smart, they will keep the most of the code base the same. If they fork too far then they won't be able to include developments made from the community. Of course, that means fixes and features added by the Novel developers would be covered by the GPL and would be given back to the community.

This sounds like a good thing for both parties. Novel gets more software to run on their servers, making their servers more attractive to customers, selling more.

Open source gets any fixed and modifications that they make. Isn't this what open source (or free software) is about, you get access to the code for free to use any way you like, provided you give everyone access to the improvements you make.

Ummm....

[Wee]

I've heard people swear on their souls that Postgre can stand up to MySQL, I look forward to finding out if this is really true. If it stands on it's own as a truly competitive product, congratulations to the Postgre guys. If however it's drawbacks are real, this could very well crush it forever.

Without sounding like I'm flamebaiting you, have you used many databases in your career? Do you know from experience the pros and cons of each? What drawbacks are you talking about? PostgreSQL is in a completely different class than MySQL. One is meant to be a full-fledged RDBMS, the other is meant to act as a super fast, network-aware DBM file on steroids. Each has their place, and they are more complementary than not. They can exist together, but you should never try to use one in place of the other. Get both, test both. Find the right tool for the job without listening to fanboy hype.

Oh, wait. IHBT. Never mind...

-B

Re:Ummm....

[Anthony Boyd]

I've heard people swear on their souls that Postgre can stand up to MySQL, I look forward to finding out if this is really true.

Without sounding like I'm flamebaiting you, have you used many databases in your career? Do you know from experience the pros and cons of each? What drawbacks are you talking about?

You didn't sound like you were flamebaiting him much, although I cringed as I read your post, waiting for the usual comment like, "MySQL is garbage even though everyone uses it, PostgreSQL is heaven and only the blessed use it." But you didn't quite do that, although calling MySQL a DBM file is a bit hostile.

So assuming we're being reasonable, here is what each side basically knows (and exaggerates) about the other. MySQL is supposedly feature poor, an awful thing without transactions, foreign keys, subselects, and other features you would find in Oracle. MySQL is for kiddies. Supposedly. Of course, most of the lacking features were implemented long ago or are about to see the light of day in MySQL 4.1. And most MySQL users freely admit they don't even need the features. MySQL gets deployed on fast-as-hell Web sites that only need to store data and display it. MySQL is for that Web site running on a Linux box that sees waaaayy too many SELECT statements during peak seconds. Cause that's what MySQL does best, and much to the disappointment of high-end database gurus, that's ALL most Web sites need. So the tool to do that best wins that market, and the PostgreSQL fans are just sour about that. On the other side, PostgreSQL is supposedly unstable and difficult. And PostgreSQL has some big-assed speed issues. Supposedly. But most of the bugs I've ever heard people complain about are things that were solved a year ago, or more. They just keep getting rehashed. And last time I was lurking through some mailing lists, PostgreSQL had been given a serious speed boost. And the PostgreSQL fans do have a good point in one area: a lot of things Web developers do in code are supposed to be done in the database. But if all you know is MySQL, you're going to become code-heavy when you push MySQL beyond its niche. And some MySQL fans just don't get it, even as they hit the wall.

So there, I've praised and pissed on both databases. What bothers me most about the usual criticisms is how outdated those criticisms are. Try the databases now. They're both kicking serious ass. They're both going to eat into Oracle's markets. Not all of Oracle's markets. But they ARE legit alternatives in some areas.

Re:Ummm....

[kcbrown]

I basically agree with the spirit of your statements, but to me it all comes down to this:

If I have to choose between PostgreSQL and MySQL and I don't know ahead of time every detail of the project I'm choosing it for (including the actual future direction of the project -- and how many times have you seen the direction of your project change unexpectedly after you've made all your decisions?), I'll choose PostgreSQL. And the reason is very simple: its capabilities are a superset of MySQL's.

MySQL wins on only one major front, and as you've noted the degree to which it wins on that front seems to be diminishing: speed. There are some minor advantages (built-in full text indexing, if I'm not mistaken) that it has but speed is the reason people claim to prefer it.

I completely agree that you should always choose the right tool for the job. The problem is that the job quite often changes over time. And I can tell you from experience that switching major tools on a production system is not trivial at all.

It's fortunate that the MySQL guys are adding features, but the PostgreSQL guys are doing the same. Both database engines are improving quite rapidly. So there is some chance that future versions of MySQL will have the features you need even if your project requirements change over time. But there's no guarantee of that, so it seems to me that PostgreSQL remains an overall better choice for the typical project when there is any uncertainty about the nature or direction of the project.

Good stuff!

[shplorb]

Great to see Novell is still alive and kicking, they've really taken a beating over the last decade.

I read the other week that they're cashed up with a billion in the bank or something.

Anyways, I love NetWare - rock solid, efficient and fast. Remember the story here about the NetWare box a uni discovered behind a wall? It had been running for years.

Windows file sharing and its' clones just suck, plain and simple. Don't knock NetWare until you've played around with it and/or seen a network setup properly with it.

NDS rocks hard.

A common (but rather misguided) complaint is that NetWare has crappy multiprocessor support - because one CPU is at 95% utilisation and the other is idle. Ever considered there's no need to use the other CPU(s) if the first isn't maxed out? =]

Now, I don't profess to be an expert on it (I'm not a CNA, CNE or whatever the other one is), but from my experience with using it I just like it, and if you have a network of Windows boxes, use NetWare for file/print serving and whatever else!

Re:Actually...

[wd123]

It's just frustrating that the Postgres team decides to port to a platform that is now relatively obscure (Netware) instead of a platform that is one of the top 3 in the database market (Windows.) It seems to be a case of "maybe if we ignore this platform, it will just go away." That attitude is disappointing, especially when it comes from a company that I'd like to support.


Please point out to me where anyone said that the PostgreSQL people actually did the NetWare port? It sounds to me more like Novell did the porting and is packaging it with their system. Also, it's entirely possible that a NetWare port would be a hell of a lot simpler than a Windows port. Windows has no real compatibility with programming in "the rest of the computer world," so why would a bunch of volunteer developers spend time on revmaping the whole application to run on it?

Would you rather they got all hardcore about running on Windows or worked on making the DB itself better on the platforms where it already runs?