Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Plays Up Open Source
An anonymous reader writes "Recently Microsoft's open source software lab posted PostgreSQL on Windows: A Primer. Postgres is one of the longest running open source databases — it has been around for nearly 11 years. The powerful object-relational database is a direct competitor to other OSS databases, as well as Microsoft's SQL Server 2005. So why is Microsoft promoting it? I get Redmond's interest in boosting anything that runs on Windows as a platform. Is this simply a case of left-hand, right-hand, or is something deeper going on?"
Easy. This is targeted at folks who have already decided they want to use Postgres, so they can't be sold on the $xx,000 MSSQL license... but maybe they can still be sold on the $300 OS license! It may be too late to lock them into our database, but it's not too late to lock them into the OS.
MS is boosting Postgre because they don't want people buying Oracle or IBM's database offerings.
The name of the software is "PostgreSQL", "Postgres", "PG", or "PGSQL", but not "Postgre".
They need to allow Ballmer, Gates and the other senior execs to be able to say "Lookw e're doing stuff with open source, interoperating with competitors" when it's convenient to make that point in their conversations with customers, the press, various governments, and the courts.
But once some business customer tries to use it, MS marketing will make it clear that some member of the SQL Server family would fit their needs so much better.
It is widely reported that Microsoft makes its money on Windows and Office. The other products earn little or even lose money. If this is true, it may make sense for Microsoft to attract people to Windows or keep them using Windows, by supporting PostgresSQL, even if it reduces their sales of their own database.
Version 1 of Postgres was released in 1989. It later evolved into Postgres95 and then PostgreSQL. And it keeps getting better every year!
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Postgres is one of the longest running open source databases it has been around for nearly 11 years. The powerful object-relational database is a direct competitor to other OSS databases, as well as Microsoft's SQL Server 2005. So why is Microsoft promoting it?
.Net... but use a free (as in beer) database. MySQL is pretty slow with joins, so Postgres with PL/SQL and stored procedures support, may be the answer.
Firstly, an article on Port 25 is not promotion. It does not count as mainstream media by any stretch.
Remember the ads on TV.. where there's a forklift, lifting up what looks like battery cells... and placing them on top of a huge building... and then you see, SQL Server 2005. If Microsoft replaces those ads with Postgres instead; we can call it promotion... not until then.
Many firms (like mine) would like to use the manpower conversant with and trained on
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Woah, there's a person with no life.... sorry chump, it's Postgre if they want it to be! SQL means Structured Query Language, so whoever took the name and changed it from the original Postgres to PostgreSQL was just looking for this kind of mistake. Especially from the SQL purists who are intimately familiar with SQL already. No one will mistake someone asking for help with Postgre with some other similarly named database engine...
I think it's because Postgres and MS SQL Server target two completely different markets. It would make much more sense to compare SQL Server to Oracle and Postgres to MySQL. Neither SQL Server nor Oracle is exactly the first choice for throwing up a small-to-mid-sized web app.
They're really several companies with distinct businesses under common ownership. Occasionally the strategy tax must be paid (e.g. no IE for linux, no java/lamp for Visual Studio, no Exchange for *nix, MSN using wmv instead of flash), but I would guess most of the inner businesses want to do what their competitors do. It shouldn't be a surprise when they do, just laughable/sad when they don't.
Despite the fact that there is little love for MS on /., we know that MS is a business and they will do whatever they can to continue to make money. The question should not be "is there something going on here?" but "What is MS up to, and how do they intend to increase profits with this move?"
This might have two functions: stop people from using competitors DB products and allow those that want to use PostgreSQL to do so on MS platforms. It is more probably a monkey see, monkey do reaction to Oracle and others.
I think its a 'me too' thing with an attempt to stop bleeding profits and market share through their DB product group. Other 'me too' attempts have not worked out very well for MS. Can you say Zune? Play for sure? etc.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Because PostgreSQL isn't licenced under the GNU GPL.
http://outcampaign.org/
Remember the ads on TV.. where there's a forklift, ...
Well no... But I bet that forklift is worn out from moving $12 billion in cash.
"Is this simply a case of left-hand, right-hand, or is something deeper going on?"
What a stupid analogy. Inappropriate and unnecessary.
software that runs on their platforms. Keep in mind, that Linux is causing MS LOADS of headaches in the server world. More importantly, if the Windows/Office monopoly can be broken, then Apple and Linux can grow QUICKLY. The best thing going for MS is that Gnome, and shortly KDE, run on MS. OTH, much of Windows based software does not run on Linux. Makes it hard for companies to move over.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Maybe they beleive they have a solid case that postgressql infringes on their patents. They want more companies using it (and to know who) so they know who they can take to court and extort some protection money.
Obviously, MS is interested in weakening the position of any competitor. In this case, Oracle is a bigger player in the databases market than MS ever dreamed to be. Therefore, helping PostgreSQL damages the competition more than it does damage MS itself, which is a win for them, in terms of market share and potential risks due to loss of control over that market. Kind of the same reason why IBM supports PostgreSQL and other OSS in detriment of its own products.
To do list for Windows
Microsoft benefits from interest in PostgreSQL no more then interest in Oracle or IBM's databases.
How foolish can you be? Have you ever known Microsoft to do anything that helped anyone but Microsft? They are bastards. They have been bastards for their entire existence? How incredibly foolish can anyone to believe anything good will come out of a Microsoft assocation. And even if they don't now do something nasty, then they will "sunset" the free portion. Won't get fooled again.
ftw!
It's pretty obvious that they're targeting the people who won't buy the MSSQL license.
I'd hardly call it "Playing up OpenSource". Now if they were writing articles about Postgre on Ubuntu or what-have-you, I'd be very much surprised.
.. that didn't miss the most obvious comment.
Embrace. <-- You are here
Extend.
Extinguish.
The site logo clearly says "Communications from the Open Source Software Lab at Microsoft" They are getting paid, they've got to do something. Not the whole beast is controlled directly from the head, you know.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
True to an extent, but MSSQL is free to many users. What's more likely is that they're promoting it as a way to break the L out of the LAMP/LAPP stack, like the recent Sun Microsystem moves.
Considering how much of the document focuses on such trivial nonsense as how to run the installer, it seems much more likely that they're promoting this at users of ready made OSS web applications than at developers.
Not sure; this might be the reason on why MS is promoting Postgres. It isn't native on Windows; CYGWIN is required.
Could MS be pitching it because the performance isn't up to par with the native versions on *nix?
Just a thought...
It's a trap !
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Absolutely they do. Customers who spend money on Oracle or IBM offerings no longer have that money to spend and have enriched a Microsoft competitor. That's a definite loss. Customers who use PostgreSQL may still have money to spend and could be enticed into spending it on other Microsoft products. Not a definite win, but still a potential for one.
Anti-Microsoft bandwagon. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if reading Slashdot makes any sense. It seems to be nothing more than a constant bash of Microsoft along with questionable articles about anything non-Microsoft. You claim to be a news source, but when you slant the news all the times you become a propoganda machine and not a news source. There is nothing wrong with sharing information about how to do something. Microsoft is merely showing people how to do something on their operating system. It isn't a consipracy theory, there are no hidden agendas, it is just people sharing information with other people.
Well embracing 'free' software is a double edged sword for MS. In the short term people stay with Windows but ultimately provides a migration path:
-
It helps the portability of GTK+ (gnome) and Qt4 (KDE) by exposing dependencies on X11, glibc and various Linuxisms that have crept into the codebase. (Porting to other Unix variants and architectures helps no doubt, too).
- It increases adoption of free software. If KOffice runs seamlessly on Windows then the underlying operation system becomes largely irrelevant
A majority of participants on this forum may be in the minority of general users in having chosen to install an OS other than Windows on one of their machines. But for the rest of the population they generally run Windows for some of the following reasons:If they end up running non-MS/non commercial free software alternatives such as Mozilla/OpenOffice/KOffice under Windows because they're free($), their next PC mightn't use Windows. Certainly this could be a migration strategy for corporate departments wanting to switch to free platforms.
Nobody has mentioned it yet, so I'll throw in my two cents. Microsoft is not against open source at all, they actively encourage and even use it on occasion (the TCP stack in windows is famously known to be from BSD Unix). They are happy when people write code that they can use.
Where they have the biggest problem is with GPL'd stuff, which they can't use at all. Of course in this particular situation there are other factors involved, but since they have been addressed by others, I will not repeat them here.
Qxe4
MSSQL is only free if your database is smaller then four gigs. On the other hand DB/2 is free no matter how much data you have.
evil is as evil does
I get a little tired of the "you in the anti MS crowd". ".... but you are right "there are no hidden agendas " at MS; they ARE a convicted (time and again ) criminal who will stop at nothing to have everything their own way and they certainly can't hide THAT agenda. It is not propaganda to continually expose this MFSOB company for all their illegal and underhand ways.
Of course you'd know that if you stopped reading and believing MS press releases about how good they are.
If you don't like reading Slashdot, don't read it. Nobody here is going to be swayed by your crying foul for your beloved MS. As a company they have evils ways and all the thinking populace know it.
MS is boosting Postgre [PG] because they don't want people buying Oracle or IBM's database offerings.
I tend to agree. Oracle is a huge company, and if lots of people used PG instead of Oracle, then it may mean more Windows sales over Unix/Linux sales. Even if they lose a bit of SQL-Server sales, the migration over to Windows may offset that. Perhaps the MS bean-counters calculated that gained Windows sales would offset lost SQL-Server sales. They maybe figure that OSS DB's will eat into *all* commercial DB's anyhow. MS may rather be in the OS biz than the DB biz because of this. I hear PG's SQL syntax is closer to Oracle's than SQL-Server anyhow.
Table-ized A.I.
I hate to break this to you all, but Postgres is a competitor to Microsoft SQL Server like DOS is a competitor to Linux. Seriously, people who can get by with Postgres wouldn't buy SQL server anyway - it's not even in the same league. This is like how VMWare gives away VMWare server, the capabilities of their real products that they charge for are so far above and beyond that it's no problem for them.
You're right. You beat me to the comment. Postgres is not a threat in the sense that MySQL is. Also MySQL takes money away from MS and puts it in their own bank account, whereas Postgres does not build up a cash-hoard that can be used against MS later. Postgres is really free, as opposed to GPL, which signifies ownership by "the community". A Few years ago, MS said very publically what their list of okay licences was. That list included BSD, but did not include GPL or the Artistic licence.
They are promoting postgres on windows because they don't want to be forced to sue people who run postgres on linux. See how nice they are?
evil is as evil does
Again (and again, and again ..) the antitrust case against MS was a civil one. MS hasn't been convicted of anything and isn't a criminal. I'm sure anyone who claims that Slashdot is not even-handed with respect to MS will be happy that you provided evidence supporting it.
in a criminal case but found guilty in the civil case.
Doesn't mean MS and OJ aren't "criminals"
just put "microsoft criminal" into Google and see for yourself. (thats actually a joke but can't help laughing at the association)
You may be technically correct (which I didn't realize BTW) but the outcome is the same. This company is proven to be Mafia like to say the least and any whinning in their defence needs shooting down instantly.
Just to be even handed however, I am ambivalent about their software.
Best part: "The install on Vista is similar to other Windows installs but to install on Vista, you must turn off User Account Control first." :-)
from the to-stupid-for-words dept.
but comparing MS to OJ or the Mafia doesn't increase your credibility.
Maybe they're planning to stop supplying MS SQL Server but don't want to give revenue away to MySQL?
No idea of the profit for SQL Server, but it would make sense to chop it if it didn't make the 20000% margin Office and Windows make.
(/sarcasm)
Insert
And all good /. readers out there KNOW this is because Novell is now their bitch, leaving them in good stead to incourage use, and then bring out some kind of legal mumbo jumbo and expect everybody to own them money.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Really, the clue is in the question. Of _course_ they are doing something with an open source product, it's their open source lab.
They want to sell you stuff, whether that be the OS license, the database product or the training lab so your developers can use it. Even if they can't get you on one, they would like to make money on the others. My XBox 360 plays back music from my iPod without insisting I go purchase a Zune, too.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
We see more readily only what we crave to have.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
MySQL is getting too big: split the userbase in Postgres and MySQL.
Linux is getting too big: make it easy to run favorite app. on Windows.
Holy shit. I just laughed at first, but then I thought "Hey, I wonder if it actually DOES mention UAC..." I don't know what to say. Mod parent insightful.
they want Postgres to run on Windows rather Linux. Then we can publish reports about Postgres being slower than M$SQL and maybe even notices from Windows pointing out how your SQL server would be better for you if it were M$'s.
"Embrace, extend, extinguish"
Power to the Penguin!
No it isn't, period. Just because "you want it to be" doesn't make it true.
The Business Week article you cite talks about sales, not profit. The GP was talking about profit. Please try not to bullshit.
The problem comes with referential integrity.
There are two reasons to have a database: fast search ability, and to ensure your data is cohesive, complete, and correct. A good RDBMS will allow you to code the *information* logic (rather than "business logic") into the datastore. That way, even if you have two or three or a dozen different parts accessing the same pieces of data, you can make sure they treat the data the same way.
That's one of the differences between a good RDBMS like MySQL, and a great one, like PostgreSQL. Stored procedures, triggers, and rules are there to enforce data integrity.
There's also an added benefit that stored procedures in some languages, like pl/pgsql in PostgreSQL, allow the RDBMS to create a better query plan over the whole procedure, making it more efficient than an external procedure that does the same thing.
This is one of the fundamentals of database design. Anyone who doesn't build referential integrity into their database isn't designing a database. They're simply using the RDBMS to cache values. This is handy feature, truly. But don't think it's the only thing an RDBMS does.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
While that's not money any of us as individuals would sneeze at, I doubt that's the money Microsoft cares about. The big money is surely in support, and Microsoft is leaving that money on the table if it insists, based on foolish pride, that it won't support stuff it didn't develop.
Large companies like Microsoft have little to fear from free software. It provides a rich source of business problems to solve for respectable consulting return. In many ways, the initial production of software is just a loss leader for big companies to get into the consulting game. Free software doesn't threaten that. All it does is limit the ability of the author to gain economically from royalty revenue at levels that would probably matter to them but that almost certainly is too smallfry for a company like Microsoft to even care about.
It seems to me very sad for the producers of useful software to unilaterally and voluntarily economically disempower themselves. The world needs people who can think and develop, and when they don't use that power to put food on the table, they lock themselves into day jobs working for someone else to do so... Worse, the main places to get those day jobs will be the places business wants to buy software support from: stable companies offering longevity and stability... companies like, say, Microsoft. Great.
Personally, I'd rather see a few more "small" millionaires, perhaps starting small and interesting sofwtare houses from royalty revenue, than no royalty revenue going to the code authors and all of industry's money going to the same old big consulting houses, who realize the market will bear the spending of that money and are willing to provide a product that the market can spend it on.
The big companies know they don't have to waste time and money trying uselessly to put the free software producers out of business. They can just use the freeness of the software to reduce their development costs in producing new products--why not do your R&D on someone else's nickel? Then they can make money on cleaning up the mess when the failure to acquire revenue means the talented creators of free-and-should-be-charged-for software software can't scale to support what they've made.
Heck, if the Postgres business really takes off for Microsoft, it could later eliminate a few of its developer jobs and cancel its own SQL product and just let Postgres continue to be developed by people willing to give away their skills rather than charge for them in a legitimate commercial challenge to Microsoft.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Why? Because it IS NOT controlled by a company ala MySQL or Oracle.
It's all about the money. Keeping it out of the hands of competitors and available to be spent on Microsoft products. While Microsoft would rather have you buy SQL Server than Oracle, they'd also rather you use Postgres than buy Oracle.
From the tests I've seen reported -- Ah, that's a B-I-G NO!
One test in particular (c. 2001?), SQL Server started crapping out in a power curve after a couple hundred connections. PostgreSQL (and MySQL) performance degraded linearly about the same as Oracle and DB2.
From a recorded talk I heard it is my understanding the
without a doubt, there are mission critical and heavy entry load applications that absolutely, positively require restoring everything after the last checkpoint. Considering the cost of Oracle or DB2, I seriously think a person should look into PostgreSQL if their persistent data entry load in particular is less stringent than that.
Dude, don't get so uptight. Who cares what it's called, PostgreSQL sucks ass.
My database of choice is MySeQuel. It's so cool, it's got like 9 different tables types, and some of them even have referential integrity! Kick ass!
Besides Windows, MS do have an ace in the hole when it comes to someone installing PostgreSQL. MS Access used as a RAD tool can be made to work very well with a PostgreSQL backend. When everyone else is doing thin client web stuff, Access is simply faster (keyboard shortcuts) and more like a typical program that people are used to. There are a few linux copycats, but unfortunately nothing in the same league.
I'd be surprised if this is a major strategy though.
From the PDF itself, Microsft admit it's a dog on Windows:
"PostgreSQL uses a process-oriented architecture similar to that of Apache 1.3, where each request is handled by an independent process. The native Windows port has not used the Windows preferred thread-oriented architecture. For this reason, one should expect performance on Windows to be lower, especially where large numbers of small queries are executed."
Personally, I use PostgreSQL on Linux as my database, and ASP.NET on IIS (Windows Server 2003) for my front-end.
I don't mind that PostgreSQL is slow on Windows as I only use it for local testing and not in our production environments.
100% correct.
If you're developing for the Windows platform, the default choice is virtually always SQL Server (the development tools are geared for it, the developer documentation is all geared for it, the frameworks are engineered for it). If you are one of the brave souls that decides to go with Windows but considers alternate RDBMSs, Microsoft wants to try to their competitors of a sale.
On the other hand DB/2 is free no matter how much data you have.
Um, is IBM's DB2 really "free no matter how much data you have"?
One of the design requirements for the new IIS7 is better support for PHP.
/ PHP-and-the-FastCGI-Module-for-IIS-7.0.aspx
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2006/10/31
Apparently competition sucks when Linux is on the trailing edge, eh?
I don't know what "runs like a mutt" qualifies as anyhow, but it may in many cases be enough for those who don't need high-performance database abilities (say, small company websites or apps with a DB, internal stuff etc).
:
The whole "FOSS on Windows" strategy might backfire in this case, especially when dealing with MPFOSS (Multiple Platform Free Open Source Software), and especially again when there is a performance improvement involved with an alternative operating system such as linux.
Step 1: Convince companies to use FOSS on windows
Step 2: FOSS works well enough to meet the needs of the companies, without any extra licensing costs
Step 3: Customer realizes that they are running Firefox, Apache, PostgreSQL, and PHP, all of which run on Linux (or BSD, or perhaps even Macs)
Step 4: Customer realizes that said applications run *better* on Linux (although I can't personally speak for such with firefox when it comes to plugins such as flash/java, because it screws up a lot on some of my 'nix machines).
Step 5: Customer sets up a small linux machine as test, installing from a ubuntu CD or whatever
Step 6: Customer realizes they can save more money by switching their desktops/servers... and ditches windows
Step 7: (much chair-throwing ensues)
So you think an MS SQL license costs tens of thousands of dollars? What color is the sky in your world?
Real cost: developer edition is less than $100, standard/workgroup is about $1400. Enterprise version is around $8000.
I could suggest you check your facts, but we all know you are all about the FUD.
I had to check on this to and yes, it is now free.
c hives/free-db2-7555
The only restrictions relate to the number of CPUs( 2 max-single or dual core) and the amount of system memory( 4 GB max ):
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/technology/ar
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
that's the funniest thing I've heard all day! MySQL competes with SQLite, flat text files, and writing your data to /dev/null. PostgreSQL competes with Oracle, MS SQL, DB2.
And I don't think the US was either.
Also, consider the definitions of "free". MSSQL may be available for limited use without monetary compensation required, but it isn't "free". Microsoft controls it. It may be free as in beer (3oz sample cups only), but not free as in freedom.
the "best thing going for MS" is that you can run crappy gtk and kde apps? If only we could convince those developers to quit making ugly, shitty knockoffs, that would be the final nail in the MS coffin.
Yes, there are multiple meanings to the word "criminal" and I'm sure you know exactly which one we've been using in this discussion.
If you have proof that MS has engaged in criminal behavior (using the other meaning of "criminal") I suggest you contact the appropriate authorities. Until then, please forgive me if I don't take your word for it.
MS Likes PostGres because it's BSD through and through, and has used that as a selling point off and on vs that viral GPL MySql. BSD=Embrace, Extend, without guilt (legally not morally of course)
Good grief.
the point is that whining here about how much MS gets attacked and the level of venom in posts against "poor ol' MS" is pointless and pathetic. This company is not despised for being successful only for the methods they employed to achieve that success and continue to employ to maintain it. They are not trusted.
Also they are Mafia like and it has been proven, Dell and other OEMs have testified to that just for starters.
You can argue that Bill is a great guy and gives money to the poor or even argue that his software is OK but to deny the shady business practices of MS is deny reality.
Attacking the rhetoric of my post cannot change that.
Just because a conviction has not been rendered does not make the action any less criminal.
MS is a multi-national corp. and have to abide by the rules, regulation and laws of the countries they wish to do business in. In the definition of "criminal" at no point in that definition does it specify this carries special boundries, or limits for US companies.
But, I could be wrong.....
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
I think the whole idea is that Microsoft is trying to help show that people who want to run open source software can do so on Windows. There are a lot of reasons why people may want to do this-- software development workstations, web application deployment, etc. While some may largely dismiss this as "PR" I think it should be noted that this is a good resource for those who want to try PostgreSQL without installing Linux.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
from taking the WIX source for the pg_installer project and tailoring it for your project. Similarly, nothing is preventing you from filing a feature request with the pg_installer team. Have fun :-) I am sure that if enough people want it enough to put in some work, it will get done. Most importantly, 99% of the work is already done, so....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Microsoft certainly appreciates the ability to take BSD-licensed reference implementations and copy the code wholesale into their own products. There is nothing even wrong with that. Imagine, for example, that someone says to me, "I have an idea for a business. Feel free to use it if you like." Then, after I build my business on that idea, a third party accuses me or ripping off the idea. I haven't done that. I had permission. Same with extending BSD software. You don't want it to happen, don't give permission.
This being said, the size and bredth of community is more important than the choice of license. If we look at both Apache and PostgreSQL, we see that there are proprietary spinoffs of both these projects. However, there is no reason to believe that in either case, the proprietary spinoffs are a threat to the main project.
In PostgreSQL, for example, we have BizgressMPP and EnterpriseDB, both of which are proprietary spinoffs of the original software. Each has only a niche market, and the pace of development of PostgreSQL is so high that both contribute back everything outside the few areas that are necessary for their niche market. In the case of EnterpriseDB, those areas they don't contribute back, the community doesn't want anyway.
BSD-licensed software can compete with proprietary software. Community is more important than choice of licnese. Indeed, when you look at how MySQL uses the GPL to sell proprietary licenses, the argument seems to turn on its head.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
my choice of words were bad. It is indeed one process per connection.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I think the decision has a lot to do with the assumptions of the operating system. In the *nix operating systems, process creation and IPC tends to be inexpensive. In windows (based on ideas from VMS), that tends to be expensive, but async I/O tends to be more mature. This means that it is logical to use a multi-threaded async I/O-based system for a native WIndows application while using a process-based model on *nix. Or at least that is what Apache found :-)
Anyway, processes also have a considerable edge when it comes to stability and troubleshooting but may have a disadvantage when it comes to raw performance. Since the PostgreSQL team takes great pride in the stability of their software, processes would seem to continue to win.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The term "convicted" is used in judicial documents indicating a finding of fault or guilt in a civil or criminal case. Look it up some time. The judges, I suspect, are using legalese correctly when they speak of convictions in civil cases.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It really depends on what you want to do. In many cases, it allows you to provide better assurance that your data will actually mean what you think it means when you go to retrieve it.
I think that both sides in this debate have some useful points. Often one of the main points of a relational database manager is that it is relational. Stored procedures tend to break that model to some extent, and many of us have experience with people building applications which used these tools incorrectly.
However, there are many cases where you may need to have separate applications accessing the same data model. In these cases, the only way to truly ensure that you have data integrity is to encode the common aspects of the data logic in stored procedures. Think of it like an ORM where the ORM is embedded in the database. If you are smart, you still have application logic (the V and C in MVC), but the logic that affects the data storage is entirely self-contained.
Hope this helps.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If MS was really "convicted" it should be easy for you to provide a link to an official court document that says so (being that the term "convicted" is used in judicial documents indicating a finding of fault or guilt in a civil case and all)
1) Multi-set-returning functions
2) Updateable cursors (iirc)
Yes, there are add-ons for OLAP cubes for PostgreSQL. There are also a huge number of other cool goodies as well. Both are good databases, but it sort of depends on what you want or need.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I am the author of the PostgreSQL paper and a consultant specializing in open source software.
I think the economic model of open source software is quite a bit different than you suppose. In fact, I suspect I have as much of a chance of becoming a millionaire via open source software as I do via royalties. Perhaps even more of a chance.
Open source software allows service providers such as myself to monopolize more of a customer's spending. Customers spend money for software, services, and hardware. With less software purchased and more efficient use of hardware, they can spend more money on services. I make more and they get more. It is a win/win situation. As my business grows, I will expect to make more money off these things as I add employees (I currently use subcontractors in some cases).
In the end, not all services are labor intensive. One can make money offering subscription access to certain types of information (like Red Hat does), consulting, support, etc. If, as you say, the money is in support, then isn't that the money we should be chasing anyway?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Clicking "Allow" isn't sufficient, or so I found. I think it has something to do with installing as a service.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
you couldn't find any evidence to support the claim that MS was convicted of anything.
"In other words, it is now a declared legal fact that Microsoft violated the law. Is there a better word than "Convicted" or "found guilty?""
It's more accurate to say that the court found in favor of the plaintiff, which was the government. The problem with saying it's a "declared legal fact that Microsoft violated the law" is that the standard of evidence was much weaker than the standard that would be used to convict you of speeding. This civil option provides a way for the government to punish you without actually proving you commited a crime.
I don't doubt that this is true, but I don't think it refutes my point. That doesn't make me right--it just means that your evidence is insufficient to convince me. I don't doubt that some people can make a lot of money on open source. I never claimed otherwise. Hence your citing an example of this kind doesn't contradict me. You might be right, or I might. We've both got opinions, I guess.
One way to view my concern is to observe that the skill and interest that leads to creating a work of this kind is not the same as the skill or interest that is required to make money after the fact. You sound like you've made a useful transition from software programmer to entrepreneurial manager of a software support organization. That's great, but I bet many others can't do it. I'm not saying no one can--just many can't. A lot of people who are programmers are going to stay programmers. For reasons of personality, for reasons of risk-taking, for reasons of skills required, for reasons of financial opportunity, for reasons of family considerations, and so on. I've seen some fail at moving from programmer to manager, much less owner/founder. I've certainly seen people fail by picking businesses they didn't understand, so I don't automatically assume a skilled programmer is going to translate to a skilled business person.
Industry can be cutthroat, and the business model you're apparently describing of "spend x years intensely writing a killer piece of software then give it away free and hope that people will rush to you to provide support so you can hire yourself and smoothly others before it gets out of hand" doesn't sound to me like a strategy I'd be comfortable advocating to, say, a child of mine or a student of mine. I don't hear caveats. I hear reassurances. Sure, people write books or articles in which they allege that this might work or cite examples where it has, but they can't gurantee it, and they always talk like it's a no-brainer. That bothers me. It's harder when the question comes up "should I quit my day job?" or even "should I give away all that hard work on the hope that I'll later be able to quit my day job?".
I don't think it's unreasonable to make an analogy to the many people who play sports thinking they'll one day be professional players. Having a pro player step forward and say "It happened to me, it can happen to you." is hard to "disprove". But it still may be that it's not going to happen to most people. Most people is not all people. And while some people have a chance, all people don't have an equal chance. Some people play for fun. And some people who play for serious succeed. But there are many in between who play for serious and fail. I think it's a good thing when people speak honestly to that class and say "while you might succeed, there are many more chances not to". I feel the same about open source software.
Hopefully you don't disagree with any of that, other than perhaps in the question of how to weigh "personal optimism" and "financial risk", which is always a personal choice. But the hard to answer question, since there simply can be no valid data, is whether if there were no open source market, there would be more or fewer people succeeding financially at software creation. Maybe the idea was inevitable, maybe not. It's not obvious to me that it had to go that way. Nor that it's a good idea that it did.
And, I allege, my motive is not selfish greed but the common good. I just come at it from a different point of view than many. It seems to me that the world is presently facing severe problems that might be loosely grouped into categories like "computational complexity overflow", "process problems", "unexpected im
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
In Contemporary Standard American English:e ening/federal.aspB y+Civil+Court
c aselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3 Dwi%26vol%3Dapp2%255C97-1261%26invol%3D1+%22civil+ case%22+DUI+conviction+-army+-military+Wisconsin&h l=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us (via Findlaw and Google's cache) Original link is http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=wi&vol=app2%5C97-1261&invol=1 (free registration required).
http://www.universalbackground.com/employment_scr
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Conviction+
In Judicial literature:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:2wt6ze95vRoJ:
So both lay people and judges sometimes use the term "civil conviction" to mean "being found guilty of breaking the law in civil court."
Any further questions? So much for "no evidence?"
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
As you know, I was asking for evidence of official court documents that state that MS was convicted, not dictionary definitions and references to obscure state court cases a decade ago.
Despite the sloppy use of the word "convicted" by lay people and the occasional judge, the fact remains that the legal consequences of losing a civil case vs. being found guilty in criminal court are so vastly different that a single word can't accurately reflect both scenarios.
I suspect the reason that there isn't a special word for the civil scenario is because the practice of "trying" people in bad faith without following the rules of evidence for a criminal case is a relatively recent invention.
Most people who say that MS was "conficted" either don't realize it was a civil case, or are trying to mislead by suggesting that the outcome was equivalent to being tried in criminal court, which it certainly is not.
Microsoft's Open Source Lab was set up to help smooth out compatability between Windows and popular open-source technologies, because they want to make sure people keep paying the Microsoft tax for an operating system.
You're probably not going to hear the pitch mssql, because Port 25 has nothing to do with that. Microsoft acknowledges that a lot of people use open source at the infrastructure level, although they may not be thrilled about it, and are trying to make things a little better for their users.
I'm an IRIX/Linux guy myself so I'm not trying to flamebait, I dislike many/most of msft's practices - but I think that having them dump cash into Port 25 for everyone trapped on a Windows desktop, is much better than having them do nothing.
You're wrong. Postgresql syntax is way more similar to SQL Server than Oracle. PGSQL stored procedures are based on transact, not PL/SQL, but it's pretty much irrelevant. While Postgres code may look more like Microsoft code, it won't run on either. MySQL's bastard SQL-like syntax though, will cut and paste fairly well on both. Of course, that's the benefit of being a "subset" rather than a "reinterpretation"
Come on, no enterprise company will install an open source database unless it provides support. Plus it is not a competitor. Companies who use MS products will definitely use Sql Server.
Visit http://www.kaizenlog.com