Slashdot Mirror
Why Oracle Can't Easily Kill PostgreSQL
ruphus13 writes "Claiming that 'PostgreSQL is a FOSS alternative to MySQL and hence Oracle should be allowed to pursue MySQL' is a specious argument, according to Monty Widenius. He fears that Oracle, or someone else, can easily squash PostgreSQL by just 'buying out' the top 20 developers. The Postgre community has fired back, calling that claim ridiculous. According to the article, 'PostgreSQL as a project is pretty healthy, and shows how vulnerable projects like MySQL are to the winds of change. PostgreSQL could die tomorrow, if a huge group of its contributors dropped out for one reason or another and the remainder of the community didn't take up the slack. But that's exceedingly unlikely. The existing model for PostgreSQL development ensures that no single entity can control it, it can't be purchased, and if someone decides to fork the project, the odds are that the remaining community would be strong enough to continue without a serious glitch.'"
And if postgresql fails there is still firebird, and all the other open source database that kick ass but are less known than mysql and postgresql.
You got your money and now you want MySQL (or at least the spotlight) back.
By your argument, PostgreSQL is fragile because the top 20 developers could be bought out by Oracle. If you think that's a buyout target that can be easily squashed, just think what a SQL DB with only one copyright owner can be? Oh wait, that was MySQL and we already know what you did....
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
someone is trying to sell this idea to Oracle. It is as simple as that.
While buying out the top 20 developers (and I find it unlikely they could in the first place) wouldn't necessarily kill PostgreSQL, it would hamper development until the next 20 developers get up to speed with the code. Imagine what would happen if Microsoft were to buy out the top 20 Linux kernel developers - Linux wouldn't be dead, but it certainly would be stagnant for a while. There's also the real possibility of major changes, since the next group of developers would have a different way of doing things and different goals for the project.
Please stop quoting Monty in slashdot stories, you're giving him a bigger platform for his comments than he deserves. He sold MySQL to Sun and then left Sun. That should be the end of the story. Now he's making sounds like a regular cry baby. Someone please tell him to get some balls and grow up.
webmaster, publisher, community leader, administrator.
if anything 'bad' happens to mysql, heads will roll.
Read radical news here
Postgres has a diverse group of contributors so it will be absolutely nothing like Oracle acquiring MySQL. Sure it would be temporarily damaging to the project if Oracle did go out and buy the leading contributors but I can't imagine that Oracle would get away with such predatory actions. FTR I believe that Oracle genuinely wants to use MySQL as s competitor to SQL Server in the bottom of the market.
attacks. Oracle has got to have enough in their patent portfolio to scare off
commercial PostgreSQL users.
This is precisely why people were concerned about letting ANY single company own it.
Any company can be bought out.
If a product can't be effectively forked, it's not completely open source.
If a GPL fork of MySQL isn't good enough, then whose fault is that? And what does that mean for other dual-licensed GPL+Proprietary products?
no text necessary!
While he is technically correct that Oracle could just bribe the key developers to abandon pgsql, this would likely backfire.
First, it assumes that the pgsql developers of importance can be bought. Our world is decadent, but not everyone has a price tag
Second, seems Monty has been dealing with mysql code for too long. The pgsql code base (at least the parts I've seen) is significantly more pleasant to work with than MySQL's, and the sheer number of projects building off of it, commercial or OSS (due to BSD licence) are a testament to how accessible it is. Even if all of the current developers were to be bribed and stopped working on postgresql, there would be a significant incentive for other parties to step in and pick up the slack, given that postgresql has a sizable user base, and especially since it is now widely seen as the heir-apparent to mysql as the open-source rdbms of choice for your run-of-the-mill applications.
Add on top of that the bad press from a failed attempt to use such questionable tactics, and I think not even Oracle is greedy or dumb enough to try anything.
...sure makes some people whiny.
Monty: Please go away.
I would like to have a list of serious companies using PostgreSQL for serious stuff...and what stuff it is PostgreSQL is doing. In my world, all you hear is "...MySQL...MySQL...", even in cases where the back-end is being handled by PostgreSQL.
Our three major DBs have about 13.4 million records combined, with enormous amounts of data about clients. PostgreSQL has never failed us. I work in the insurance business.
because PostgreSQL kicks MySQL's ass in everything except market share whichever way you look at it
DUH!
Some people don't do it for the money. You can't buy them. Ever.
For me it's like that: I have a goal that I see as the point of my existence. Big money does not help that goal. So no money in the world can change my goal. And nothing can stop me from pursuing it. Because that would be the end of existence. If I don't want to chew bubble gum, not even a million will change that. (One guy tried that on me, but with $1000 on the table. Just to chew one strip of gum. I said no, and I'm proud of it. It drove him and his tiny mind crazy that evening. :) :)
If money can trump your principles, you've got no principles but are a lying bastard. (Yes I know that this goes completely against the “official” US philosophy. But we don’ have to agree, have we?
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Even if all the pgsql developers quit today and nobody came in to continue, it would still be a better product than mysql will ever be.
Do you have ESP?
They released free version XE for the department/small business server. If nothing else, that demonstrates the power of PostgreSQL to give the consumer a break in the marketplace. Up there with Apache and OO.org as one of the premiere open source display projects. I hope that excellence keeps them committed.
I'm getting fed up to the back teeth with this guy. He must have got himself into some mental issues he can't get out of. He had a dual licensed database server in MySQL that brought in good money and had a side-effect of making it the standard database as the web expanded, which he then sold to Sun for a very tidy sum and he still now expects to be able to control MySQL's future?
Before Sun bought MySQL Sun was heavily involved with Postgres (still is in many ways) and they could have quite easily tried to take that project over as opposed to buying MySQL. They didn't, and they would have found that very difficult because there are a lot of different interests in Postgres now.
The sad truth is that most FOSS projects rely on one, or a handful of key people. If those people leave or are bought out - or more subtly, influenced - the project could be killed or undergo a significant change of direction. There is no guarantee that others will step in with sufficient knowledge or expertise to take their place.
Postgesql languished for years before it was picked up again. There is nothing to suggest that couldn't happen again if the top developers were bought out. Very few people aren't susceptible to a nice pay check, especially when it is paid to them for what they are doing already.
The BSD license allows the wholesale privatisation of all software development produced under its writ. That is what it was originally intended for, to privatise government funded software produced by educational institutions.
The BSD licence is only 'more free' in the double speak sense that you are free to restrict the freedom of others to access your additional code. No unlike the greater democracy of Hitler's Germany where the people were even free to vote away their democratic rights - which they promptly did.
For me it's like that: I have a goal that I see as the point of my existence. Big money does not help that goal. So no money in the world can change my goal. And nothing can stop me from pursuing it. Because that would be the end of existence.
But they could buy you a prostitute.
Maybe, just to ensure that this can't happen, he should join the PostgreSQL project and become a top contributor...
Do you mean to say that you do not chew gum on principle?
And you claim that passing over $1,000 for this 'principle' was a good idea?
Really?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
EnterpriseDB is a company that offers commercial support for PostgresQL. They have salaried people on staff that contribute to the project, much like IBM, RedHat etc. contribute to the Linux kernel. So I would say Monty's scenario is about as likely as Linux going away by Microsoft or Apple paying off the to 20 kernel developers. Some people just don't get how open source works.
...and I'd be the the fallen madonna with the big boobies.
Have you heard about SoylentNews?
If the top 20 developers are bought out for a good chunk of money, that will be a huge incentive for at least another 20000 developers to try to get the same amount... by developing PostgreSQL further. I hope Oracle does it. The development of PSQL will skyrocket overnight. BTW, MySQL is being forked too, but PSQL has a better license. MySQL is junk, always has been...
My 2 cents on this non-story
And Monty Widenius is trying so hard to win the "communist software troll of the decade" award even Richard M. Stalinman would blush!
What he's advocating is government tyranny against millions of Sun's and Oracle's shareholders, employees, customers, and other stakeholders, not to mention the European tax-victims who'll end up paying for a socialist software industry once they entirely succeed in destroying free market enterprise on that economically and demographically shrinking continent!
Those people have a right to manage their property however they see fit - they are not the serfs of their government overlords, nor are they the slaves of MySQL freeloaders. Life doesn't owe anyone a free ride! Free / open source software should come about as the natural result of market competition, not government force!
(More about libertarian / Anarcho-Capitalist software philosophy here.)
-1, Offtopic
-1, Wrong
STFU
Monty. You seriously need to take your money you made from us and just Shut The Fuck Up.
Back in 1998 we developed a system to manage the vehicle and drivers license database for Mexico City, all done with Perl, TK and PostgreSQL. We faced the problem with the 2GB limit size of tables, can't remember the solution.
If not chewing gum is one of your principles, you've got some issues.
Dilbert RSS feed
I wouldn't exactly feel discouraged to contribute to PostgreSQL if I know that Oracle kept paying the top 20 developers, especially if I knew that they payed enough to keep me away forever.
He sold MySQL to Sun and then left Sun.
That is factually inaccurate. He was informed that the sale had taken place once it was done. The mistake Monty made was to sell MySQL to shareholders years ago. It probably wasn't a mistake either, although there should have been a clause in the shareholder agreement about the resale of MySQL.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
according to Monty Widenius. He fears that Oracle, or someone else, can easily squash PostgreSQL by just 'buying out' the top 20 developers
Or in MySQL's case, just one ... right, Monty ?
For $1 billion I'll become a PostgreSQL developer and then agree to stop developing for it.
Yes - by all means, we should just cow down to tyranny. That's what everyone's done in the past and it worked out well. There's no such thing as a successful revolt in history. Also - gun rights are directly linked to foreign policy.
Thanks for clearing those things up for us.
Richard Stallman has clarified that he believes the GPL is necessary and sufficient protection for MySQL, in direct contradiction to Widenius' call that the license should be changed and copyrights rest in some entity other than Oracle.
Eben Moglen and the Software Freedom Law Center defend the GPL even more strongly:
you had me at #!
Some people don't do it for the money. You can't buy them. Ever.
I don't know. I mean, I know what you're talking about: I've turned down a well-paying job with equity that would have set me up pretty good because I felt there was something more important than the money.
But here's the thing: at a certain level, once people offer you enough money (the mark starts somewhere around a million bucks) they're not just offering you money anymore, they're offering you freedom to do whatever you'd like to with your time. If the top 20 Postgres devs would rather do nothing else than work on Postgres, then you're right, this wouldn't happen. But if enough of them have other interests, then it's entirely possible someone could buy their non-participation -- with the ability to spend all the time they like on something else.
Tweet, tweet.
It's not a multiuser database.
A web site is a classic multiuser scenario for an RDBMS; you have to have concurrency issues completely nailed down (ideally with row level locking and ACID).
It's also MySQL's sweet spot.
you had me at #!
I think the problem is less about Monty wailing about Oracle's calumny, and more about Monty's view of how FOSS works. He seems to think it needs heroes, and that the rest of us plebes need someone to follow before we can get anything useful done. I'll agree with him that projects need leadership, but like comments above have said, there's a difference between project leadership and making yourself indispensable. If Monty was indispensable when he left MySQL, then he was the one that killed it, not Sun, and not Oracle.
No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
Ha, it even says "trolling" in the subject and slashtards are so goddamn stupid they bite on it anyway.
If so, I suspect that the psql team will nullify a number of those patents with prior art. Long before Oracle 9/10's move into OO, Postgres was there.
Also, once Oracle creates that kind of ill will, how fast will MS move MS-SQL to Linux/Unix? It would happen within 3 months. They would KILL to have all those OSS coders switch DBs.
Finally, Oracle will not go after Postgres with patents. Right now, postgres has many similarities to Oracle. As such, it is increasingly being used for lower end work, and then projects move to Oracle. Basically, Oracle sees it as a feeder project. Personally, I would stick with Postgres for all bu the top demand projects.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Postgresql has a more robust, decentralized community of ISVs and developers than did MysqlAB. The BSD license contributes to this loose federation of collective developers because no one company runs the show.
Furthermore, the folks in #postgresql on irc.freenode.net are superb. David Fetter is the man!
Ever since this Monty thing started a lot of people started to bash all of his efforts with a mere comment "You sold out and now you want the glory back". I for one think thats a pretty lame comment which is probably only fed with envy. Note that I'm stating that it would be untrue or anything; just unfair since its the most obvious and easiest comment to make.
I've been spammed by Monty last year when he started his "Save MySQL" rampage and the one thing I consider highly dubious are the reactions he seemingly gets to his efforts. Note how almost any comment on his blog is positive about the way things are going and how people welcome to see him put some effort into all this? Only one reaction shows a small sign of certain doubts but thats it.
Well, I think that is something you can take into account. When I got his e-mail on my company e-mail address (which I've used to respond to a MySQL mailinglist years ago) I looked over the website, read his blog and then wrote a comment that I didn't agree with the way he handled his action, that I didn't like to be spammed in the way he did and quite frankly that it sounded odd coming from someone who set the whole thing into motion in the first place.
Not talking about money, fame and fortune here mind you. If he wanted some kind of security or insurance for the future of MySQL he should have included that right into the negotiations when he sold MySQL to Sun. Something in the likes of "In case of bankruptcy or take over the rights go back to the original owner", I don't know.. Point being: he should have thought about all this before he sold out to Sun.
So IMO this whole action of his only shows us how utterly narrow minded and clueless he is. Do we really want someone like that to re-gain control over how MySQL is going ?
This isn't about money or fame or envy. Its a question about (lack of) integrity, insights, honesty and some simple common sense. I think you'll find those qualifications lacking with Monty, and thats the only thing I'll hold against him. Not "he sold out". Who cares? Can you honestly say you wouldn't have done so? I don't.. The only thing I can say is that I'd have done it differently.
So... Can we now please move on and simply ignore whatever else is coming out of Monty's mouth?
what a troll - and that was lying about what Stallman said
Can we get him put on some terr'rist list or something?
Monty can cry all he wants about Mysql, he is never getting back control of it. He should sponsor a fork of Postgre, which has a BSD license and would let him resell or modify it to his liking. He could even make another dual source license I'm guessing. He could probably start this tomorrow if he wished, it seems the real problem for him would be gaining the trust of open source developers after the Mysql situation.
...why this is such an issue. I know that MySQL is distributed (at least to some) under the terms of the GPL. I have received it only under GPL2, and never under their proprietary license.
The GPL has been applied to the MySQL code, and it cannot under any circumstances be removed. Sure Oracle could absorb whatever code they wanted into any proprietary product, but I still have GPL code, we all still have the original.
Development could continue in the community, we can still enjoy the benefit of the MySQL database with or without oracle's blessing. In short, this a non-issue because we will always have the database code as it is now.
The fact that Monty is a prick and a sellout makes no difference either. PostgreSQL won't be sold out, and even if it was, we would still have the GPL'd versions to fork from. That's what the GPL is supposed to do. It is there to protect us from the Monty Wideniuses of the world!
I am the penguin that codes in the night.
He'll just have to kick ass instead.
That's the problem dual licensing has; you never know what to expect from the onwer, and that is why is has to be avoided when truly free projects are out there... same goes to KDE/Qt.
Dear
I once worked for a company called Great Bridge, which attempted to make money selling a boxed version of PostgreSQL. We employed/contracted with several key PostgreSQL developers, and I distinctly remember discussions with management and at least one of those developers about this very topic. The developers had agreed amongst themselves and with Great Bridge management to limit the number of key committers who took money from Great Bridge in order to ensure the company didn't exert too much control over the project (I'm sure we would have been happy to have every one of them on the payroll). History proves Monty wrong on this one.
Yeah... keep telling yourself that...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
that bug in the ambler of simpler times is powering millions of sites servicing hundreds of millions of internet users worldwide. ranging from forums to portals, shopping sites to collaboration sites.
for hosting market LAMP hosting with cpanel is THE way to go. it is expected default server config. even the big players are offering lamp packages foremost, because request for other packages are nil, the only exception being a very tiny percentage of asp and mssql hosting. its to the extent that new startups are not even bothering with offering anything aside LAMP.
Read radical news here
Why is he all in a wad over this? He alleged concerns make no sense when his past actions are taken into account - unless he has some hidden agenda. He sees no problem with selling mysql to Sun, and then has a hissy fit about mysql being sold to oracle. Something is not adding up.
Some have suggested that he wants to double-dip. How would he do this? And why would mysql being sold to oracle make any difference?
His present hysteria about the future of postgresql does not make sense to me either. Is there not always the possibility of top FOSS developers being bought out, regardless of who owns mysql? I mean if you want to get all hysterical about improbable "what if" scenarios, then what if some company bought the top postgresql developers, and top mysql developers?
I'm just trying to understand this.
Monty is a joke, fraudster or desperate, and we should not let people like him get too much space. Look at what he writes:
"Q: Are MySQL and Oracle really competing products? A: Yes. To be fair, they don't compete for all applications and it's in many cases prohibitively expensive, risky and time-consuming to migrate an old Oracle application to work on MySQL.[...]"
I would say that this is the understatement of the year (and it is just the beginning of January). To be REALLY fair, they don't compete for MANY applications at all, considering the whole spectrum of applications relying on a (R)DBMs. His comparing MySQL to Oracle is plain stupidity and shows that he either is ignorant, uneducated or just trying to fool gullible people. He should feel ashamed. It puts his whole campaign in ridicule to people that knows more than the masses he so desperately tries to control.
I had to suppress my laughter when I read his claim that PostgreSQL isn't an alternative to MySQL (but apparently Oracle was!). The three reasons were 1) different feature sets and support from various applications 2) no single strong company backing it, and 3) the PostgreSQL market is also dominated by Enterprise DB
The first part of claim one (feature sets) are pure bs. PostgreSQL is closer to Oracle RDBMs that any current incarnation of MySQL. Thus if he considers MySQL and Oracle in the same league, by his method reasoning, PostgreSQL is too (I disagree, I consider Oracle to be in an entirely different playground). Claim 2 and 3 clashes somewhat and claim 2 is also plain stupid.
HOW MANY users actually USES the support and backing of the commercial MySQL (not given away freely) and how many turn to the community for free support (something PostgreSQL also provides through its community). I am willing to bet huge on that the vast majority of MySQL installations out there NEVER has been in contact with the commercial MySQL-support and never will... ever. Period.
So I call on Montys claims and say that it is a lot of FUD from someone playing people for his own personal agenda. He has delusions of grandeur and wants to make himself more important than he is.
I would be sorry if Oracle killed off MySQL since I use it in some projects where I am prohibited from using a more competent DBMs. But hearing these biased rants week after week makes me want to start a counter-campaign to Montys just for the sake of it.
You know, the kind that plans gambits with the assumption the opposition isn't paying attention to what you're up to.
Suppose Oracle decides to kill PostGres by hiring *all* of the top developers. Getting 40% or 50% of them is probably feasible at a reasonable price, but not the nail-in-the-coffin Evil Ellison is looking for. He needs 100% of the key developers or as-near-as-dammit. The closer you need to get to 100%, the higher the cost goes, and it's not linear.
It'd be easy to hire four or five of the top 20, but to get sixteen or seventeen you'd have to make the offer so amazingly good that only a fool would refuse. How much would that cost? A cool million apiece?
Here's the flaw. Let's say I'm a competitor, and I see that Oracle has just dropped twenty or thirty million to get these exact persons on the team. But there are lots of good programmers in the world. I could hire some darn good ones with a hiring bonus of, say, a hundred thousand plus a good salary and a chance to work on an interesting, high profile project. So after Oracle spends its twenty, I spend two million and replace the lost talent with equally good talent.
Why?
Because it's a serious setback Oracle's plan to become the de facto owner of database technology. Well worth it, to me, even if I compete *myself* against Postgres. Also, because it socks Oracle where it lives -- in the cash flow. That could hurt it in other ways. We could have management turnover, maybe even a purge at Oracle for doing something so stupid with twenty million bucks. Cue the "Mwa-ha-ha-ha" in my boardroom. And once Oracle gives up, I *still* have these twenty top notch systems programmers I can use on any mf my projects.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The 2nd Iraq invasion changed my view about the world.
As we know, the initial success of the invasion wasn't due to military excellence such as the African Desert Tank Battles between General Mongomery and the German Panzer Divisions.
It was due to middle ranked officers - tank commander, platoon leaders being paid money by the US Govt, CIA. When they didnt show up to work on the specified day, the ordinary soldier fled.
In this case Monty is right, its not hard, for orgs with the know-how and resources to de-rail something. Money talks.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Aren't you supposed to buy a license for InnoDB in order to get ACID in MySQL? Last time I checked, ACID was mutually exclusive with fulltext indexing as well. Postgresql is far better for a medium sized to large website, as it doesn't have any of these issues and also supports MVCC, which results in much less waiting than with row level locks.
IMO /. has justed the shark with this "story". Thank you for no longer wasting my time.
Every time I've gone looking for information on how to use FireBird with my favourite language (which changes frequently) I've come away unsatisfied. So I've gone with something that was easier to figure out how to use.
That's a part of why FireBird gets ignored. It was sort of like what Linux was in the late 90's. Probably quite capable, but the documentation seemed to assume that you knew someone to coach you over the undocumented spots. Or that you were familiar with something sufficiently similar. Over the last decade Linux has backfilled, but FireBird hasn't. In fact it seems to have retrogressed, just based upon the last time I considered using it. (I didn't want to use SQLite because I wanted a system that let me use integer keys, and the SQLite interface to the language I was then using didn't. But I wanted a DB that would allow me to pick the file I was using as my database and store it locally with the program. FireBird would seem to have been ideal...but I couldn't easily figure out hot to use it, so I used something else. [I think that time I packed the integers into byte strings with each byte using only 7 bits.])
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Whatever!
The point is received gobs of money and now he's whining like a toddler. I think everybody's fucking sick of it by now.
If he signed a bad deal, THAT IS HIS FAULT AND HE SHOULD FUCKING COPE WITH IT LIKE AN ADULT! And stop spamming up this, and other, forums with his bullshit whining.
Comment of the year
DUH!
Some people don't do it for the money. You can't buy them. Ever.
For me it's like that: I have a goal that I see as the point of my existence.
Yes, well these people would be being paid to give up working on a database server. If your goal in life is to work on a database server, you probably need to get out more.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Do you have actual benchmarks showing SQLite outperforming MyISAM on reads? This might be surprising news to the sites which are using MySQL at large scale. I would repeat: SQLite won't scale.
(Benchmarks against InnoDB wouldn't be relevant of course, as InnoDB is an ACID, MVCC engine.)
you had me at #!
KDE & QT are under LGPL, which, unlike GPL, avoid this vulnerability. The only reason for getting a commercial license for otherwise LGPL'd software is that either 1) you need static linking or 2) you need to make secret modifications to the library.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Mr Widenius wants to be the EnterpriseDB in the MySQL milieu. He already has salaried developers working on MariaDB, for Monty Program AB. If his wish for MySQL to be relicensed under "a more permissive Open Source license" were granted, he's promised that MPAB would only add "BSD" code to MariaDB, but he could have other companies on the side doing closed enhancement too. In fact he has not explained any other way that MPAB can stay in business.
you had me at #!
Access is a front-end to Microsoft SQL Server Express and Microsoft SQL Server. In a lot of cases, SQL Server Express ($0) is more than enough to run a business and is a nice step up from the Jet engine built into Access.
I wonder why MySQL is even considered as an option these days. Honest question -- I don't have much experience with it. I just tried to port my DB schema a couple of years back to it (from MS SQL) and run a couple of queries and it showed ridiculously poor performance on complex joins, so I went with Postgres instead. Postgres has been great.
Is there a good technical reason why people choose MySQL over Postgres?
10 PRINT "A big payout encourages the next 20 top developers to get up to speed quickly in the hope of yet another payout"
20 PRINT "Big corp buys out developers"
30 GOTO 10
I miss my TRS-80 and the cassette recorder.....
monty's just an idiot, he sold mysql and now whinges about it.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Hey, they backed a dump truck full of money up to my house! I'm not made of stone!
if it was as easy to setup and maintain as MySQL. I have too much other stuff to do already. :/ From what I can see MySQL has much better maint tools as well.
"all of the original founders of MySQL got collectively less than 12 % of the Sun deal". This meant EUR 16 million to Widenius personally last year according to his Wikipedia page. So buying it back is out of the question (even if the owner wanted to sell it) - and no billionaires were made in the deal.
you had me at #!
And why do you think you wield such power to make heads role? What "community" do you lead? Why are you hiding behind a pseudonym of "unity100" when you're supposedly well known?
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Anything that supports Interbase supports Firebird, which is pretty much everything. I don't think you tried very hard.
Firebird is actually way better at the things people typically use SQLite for. It can be embedded about as easily (even statically like SQLite) and works in a similar fashion with a single database file if that's what you want, etc. It performs way better than SQLite though. On par with MySQL's performance or better (but has a much better/freer license than MySQL). Plus it supports features like stored procedures and such like PostgreSQL.
It really is worth the effort.
That "special" license is BSD, which is an open source compatible license, and completely compatible with GPL software. Idiot.
learn that already!
it's not postgre, it's postgres!
So why should anyone favor a free project where there exist reasons to apply for a commercial license when there are others where you don't even need to think about it?
Dear
If companies started "buying out" top contributors of open-source software projects, it would be the best thing to happen to OSS. Thousands of new developers would join in their place, hoping to be the next buy-out targets. It's the same logic that fuels terrorism: each "martyr" creates 20 new wannabe-martyrs.
You are correct. I *didn't* try very hard. I did a once over pass to select something to investigate more closely. Firebird made the first cut, i.e., I'd heard of it and what I'd heard seemed vaguely appropriate. It failed the second cut (which had only one winner) of being the easiest to figure out how to test. The one that passed that was the one I eventually used.
I don't defend this process as a way of finding the best choice, except in the sense that it minimized the time involved in searching. But the question was "Why isn't FireBird better known?"
P.S.: I am not now and never have been an Interbase user, so referring to Interbase doesn't help me at all. (Yes, I know that some of the Firebird documentation is Interbase documentation. This doesn't help me either in feeling confident that it's current or in knowning what to do. It's also no great hinderance, as I presume that if the Firebird site is pointing to it as documentation, then it's what they are recommending as documentation. But that's the way I counted it during my evaluation.)
P.S.: I didn't need a really powerful DB. One of the choices I considered was Kirbybase. I think I ended up using BerkeleyDB (once from SleepyCat). I was probably using Python at the time (which would mean that the Firebird interface I considered was kinterbase).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
as do some other storage engines available for MySQL (such as PBXT).
MyISAM does not, of course; it is more comparable to SQLite, although the latter does have transactions.
you had me at #!
Did they convert?
you had me at #!
If those reasons aren't relevant to you then why should it bother you? Given the example of making secret modifications mentioned by GP, I'd guess probably 1% of users would be interested in that. The other 99% wouldn't care. But it's nice that the choice is there for those who want it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We're very optimistic about free software. It can survive without funding. It can survive alongside superior competition. It is very resilient in every way, especially if as popular as this project is. But one thing it cannot do - is survive without the developers. Sure you can fork it, but as the guy up there says, if it had only 20 high-profile devs before there's little chance it'll gather 20 more of the same profile as those it lost. It is a real threat. The only two foreseeable solutions would be that "low-profile" devs start working harder, and those who left still try to contribute as best as they can. Unfortunately, the second one can be countered by the 'all your code is belong to us' clause in their contracts (bear in mind however, that they would have to accept it). In short, we should all look into projects where we can help (if not us, who will breathe new life into free software projects? *Someone* needs to develop them, you know?). There's plenty of learning opportunity, and we can help. We must admit most of us don't do it very often. And that's the real cause of this threat - that is, besides the fact that there's no universal commercial model which would directly fund developers. If we had the latter, the former would be eradicated immediately.
I really think you're missing my original point, which was about MySQL... since MySQL was owned by a specific company and was licensed in such a way that it actually mattered who owned it, that company was a vulnerability. PostgreSQL is not exposed this way because the license doesn't give the copyright owner the ability to restrict the fork in any meaningful way.
This is a problem with dual licensing, one that (for example) Qt avoided because Trolltech gave the Free Qt foundation the right to release Qt under the BSD license if Trolltech stopped its development. Monty could have given MySQL an escape clause like that, but either he didn't think of it or he thought it was giving up too much control.
I agree with you regarding reproductive freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of (and from) religion - including freedom from the religion you're currently trying to impose. Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to take away other people's property, even if that property intimidates you. Please do try to read a book and understand what Natural Rights are before you go around imposing your wishful thinking on others.
That's exactly what the people writing books on natural rights are doing.
No, libertarians who write books on Natural Rights apply econometric formulas to empirically identify which societal rulesets are necessary for a civilized society.
Quoting my recent post from another socialist-leaning software forum:
In reality, Natural Rights come from the principle of competitive advantage: a society that violates Natural Rights the least would have an empirically-observable materialistic advantage over other societies that violate them more. It's almost as clear-cut as penicillin, except of course you can't observe human societies through a microscope, and the lenses of history are blurred by pro-government bias that funds and controls most knowledge-related institutions.
A society that tolerates murder has never made it out of the hunter-gatherer phase of human development. A society that tolerates theft is very unlikely to build a successful and stable economy. A society that believes in a false construct called "animal rights" (which violates actual Natural Rights of humans) wouldn't advance as well scientifically, due to the necessity of using animals for lab experiments. A society that believes in various false constructs called "positive rights" (ex. right to free food, health-care, unicorns, etc) will discourage economic productivity, experience flight of brains and capital, higher taxes, and it will eventually simply run out of competent people to tax (read Ayn Rand). Etc.
No society with a complete monopoly on force in the hands of the government has ever prospered for more than a generation or two. Just compare gun-controlled Weimar Republic that lead to the rise of Hitler to Switzerland - which Hitler actually wanted to invade, but it simply wasn't cost-effective for him to do so, because of its armed populace being ready for an active campaign of disobedience. If the Jews in Germany were as well armed as the Swiss, then Hitler's rise to power would have been simply impossible! Gun control has cost hundreds of millions of lives in the 20th century alone, while the side-effects of gun control are minuscule in comparison!
Furthermore, it is inevitable that avoidance of liabilities in the free market (cost of insurance, risk externalities, tort, perfectly legitimate local gun control by private property owners, etc) would inevitably lead to proliferation of "less lethal" self-defense technologies, and concentrate more firepower in the hands of qualified professionals. It is the government that's creating economic pressure for more lethal technologies, and it most certainly takes a government to create something as economically retarded as an aircraft carrier or an atomic bomb!
Now, once again, this socialist-leaning forum is not a good place to have this debate, especially when outspoken points of view are restricted to only 2 posts a day. If you want to debate this further then please go to a more libertarian / Anarcho-Capitalist forum instead, where dissenting views are likely to be treated more substantively and not stifled, as they are here.
Which is complete BS, and utter speculation.
You talk about the Jews in Germany being as well armed as the Swiss? It still would have happened, to say otherwise is more speculative BS, and propaganda.
There is no economic advantage to competition, unless you can crush and eliminate the competition. While there is a huge advantage to cooperation. That's how trusts form. Its basic game theory.