Apple Removes MySQL From Lion Server

sfcrazy also noticed that Apple has officially removed MySQL from Lion Server, opting instead to include PostgreSQL, albeit in command line only form. The article speculates that the change is because MySQL is now Oracle property, and Apple is concerned about IP issues following all the legal issues surrounding Java.

Comments

Much better anyway

[Anrego]

I just wish it was a little more user friendly. That was the one thing MySQL had going for it.. dead simple to use and admin.. and I imagine Apple's frontend probably made it even more so. Postgres isn’t as bad as oracle (by a long shot) but it certainly requires a little background reading to use. MySQL you can pretty much throw on a box and start using right away. This made it insanely newbie friendly (and cheap webhost admin friendly) and is probably the reason it became so prevalent.

For the record I’m no fan of Apple and I think using apple as a server is insane but I actually agree with Apple on this one.

Re:Much better anyway

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Postgres isnâ(TM)t as bad as oracle (by a long shot)...

Talk about "damning with faint praise"!

Re:Much better anyway

[suso]

I agree. Been using PostgreSQL since 2004 and only occasionally use MySQL. I could see the writing on the wall when the mysql.com site kept moving the link for their documentation around, making it harder to find. My gripe about PostgreSQL is the same, its harder to admin, especially in a shared hosting environment.

Re:Much better anyway

[Atzanteol]

"Use and admin" != "install."

Re:Much better anyway

[amorsen]

I keep hearing that Postgres is hard to admin. Yet Postgres integrates with the normal Unix user accounts so I don't have to worry about users and passwords, it uses sockets by default so I don't have to worry about networking (unless the SQL server is remote), it provides sane semantics without having to worry about table types...

I like SHOW CREATE TABLE from MySQL and the \-commands could use some aliases, but other than that Postgres is rather nice to admin and use.

Re:Much better anyway

[UnknowingFool]

For the record I’m no fan of Apple and I think using apple as a server is insane but I actually agree with Apple on this one.

I think there are many that have been using mac minis as SOHO servers for businesses and that's why Apple offers a server version of that hardware. I do know that some colocation companies have used them because their small form factor made it possible to pack them densely.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anrego]

Installation is nothing as you said...

Main different is in managing users/databases/tables.

MySQL uses a dead simple system. You have a username and password possibly linked to a hostname.. and it has some global permissions and some database specific permissions.

Postgres has a much more robust (and as a result considerably more complicated) security setup.Authentication can happen through one or many different means.. most of which require a little configuration and more importantly you need to know they exist/how they work! This also complicates connecting to the database.

Additionally where MySQL has an ultra friendly console app with built in help for creating users and databases.. postgres has a series of scripts. The default way ot creating a new table is to copy one from a provided template (called template1). Again, this is all stuff you need to learn before doing. Someone can run the mysql command, run help, see "CREATE DATABASE" and kinda go from there. To use postgres you need to know that this template exists, how to use it, and what the hell you are actually doing... and then you need to figure out how to control who has acess to it.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anrego]

* new database

Re:Much better anyway

[slartibartfastatp]

for me, I never found a tool like mysql query browser for postgresql. I'd rather use a db with some kind of UI tool to deal with than use it directly on console all the time. and that's why I go with mysql.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anrego]

I wouldn't say hard (oracle is hard!) .. just harder.

I agree once you get it up and running (and in my case, write a few wrapper scripts) .. postgres is not any more difficult than MySQL. And it's nicer to use for sure (I like being able to rely on transactions).

It's more that there is that initial learning curve which drives newbies away.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Replacing MySQL query browser is not the problem, you can use DBVisualizer (http://www.dbvis.com/). It's not great but it gets the job done. The issue is the admin side, near as I can tell there is no UI for admin at all. Now, setting up a database and a couple users isn't a problem CLI, but when you have a large database, dozens or hundreds of users and lots of different permissions, it becomes a nightmare to keep track of what's currently in place.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Add in pgAdmin and Postgres is a snap to administer. It's just the initial security setup that takes some work and that's because it tries to be safe by default.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anrego]

There actually is a postgres equivilant of phpMyAdmin (or atleast, there was...). I seem to remember it being "ok" .. if you are into that sorta thing ;p

Re:Much better anyway

[realityimpaired]

Additionally where MySQL has an ultra friendly console app with built in help for creating users and databases.. postgres has a series of scripts. The default way ot creating a new table is to copy one from a provided template (called template1). Again, this is all stuff you need to learn before doing. Someone can run the mysql command, run help, see "CREATE DATABASE" and kinda go from there. To use postgres you need to know that this template exists, how to use it, and what the hell you are actually doing... and then you need to figure out how to control who has acess to it.

I'm fairly sure that there's a PostgreSQL equivalent of phpMyAdmin or such. All you need is a single user that has full access to the whole shebang (which you need to create new databases/set up their access from CLI anyway), and if you're paranoid about security, do what I do: put it in a non-web accessible directory that has to be enabled by creating a symlink when you actually want it, use .htaccess to restrict access to a single user when it even exists in the web-accessible part of the server, and nuke the symlink when you're done using it. Or if you don't want to go through all of that hassle, still use .htaccess, and set up a namevirtualhost in Apache to respond to an FQDN that doesn't actually exist (on a TLD that doesn't exist at all, like sqladmin.yournamehere) and set up a hosts file to resolve that to your server's IP.

When the tools exist to do it through an easy interface, there's really no point in trying to do it through CLI unless you're trying to prove how leet you are.

Re:Much better anyway

[fuzzytv]

I hear this (that PostgreSQL is hard to admin) all the time, and most of the time it's from users who are used to do it in a different (potentially perverse) way. For example I've always struggled with user management in MySQL, I've always found it a bit crappy, enigmatic and error-pronee, but they're used to it. But PostgreSQL is administered in a different way, so it's obviously bad.

I'm not saying it's 100% perfect, but I find it quite sensible.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anrego]

pgMyAdmin (the equivilant you speak of) is actually difficult to set up, due to the way postgres does user auth. phpMyAdmin you just drop in a directory and it works, pgMyAdmin requires a fair bit of configuration.

Additionally pgMyAdmin isn't nearly as straight forward for the same reason the command line utilities arn't. Postgres doesn't have a "just give me a damn database" option .. you have to know what you want, which pretty much requires reading the same documentation, and _then_ learning how to do what you just read through a different interface.

Re:Much better anyway

[vlm]

Yet Postgres integrates with the normal Unix user accounts so I don't have to worry about users and passwords

You can also Kerberos Postgres, but not mysql... That will eventually be the death of mysql on my systems. "when I get around to it" I'm going to kerberized postgres.

Re:Much better anyway

[TheRaven64]

I've been using PostgreSQL since about 2001, on and off, including administrating a network with a small server that gave about 100 people web hosting with a PostreSQL database. I never understood the 'harder to admin' thing. For each user, you need to run createuser. You then need to run createdb for each db. I'm not sure how much simpler it could be.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

pgAdmin3 is the way to go, it works really well and pretty much has a "just give me a damn database" button.

I started with PostgreSQL and had to use MySQL for some projects later. I find MySQL and its tools to be cumbersome, but that's likely just due to my familiarity with PostgreSQL.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anrego]

I hate apple mainly due to the way they do business and their "we control all" approach and rampant fanboy-ism. I can however admit they do user friendly software quite well.

For a newbie learning how database work, they don't (initially) care about relevant indexes .. they just want a database they can start creating tables in and running queries on. I've not seen the GUI frontend for MySQL .. but if it has a "create user" and "create database" button.. it succeeds in making MySQL even simpler.

Re:Much better anyway

[fuzzytv]

Why do you think the PostgreSQL user management is complicated to setup? Unless needed, it can be just as simple as MySQL, just put the "host" lines to pg_hba.conf.

And have you seen pgadmin (http://pgadmin.org)? That's a very nice console app. And just like there's phpMyAdmin, there's a phpPgAdmin with about the same functionality. So you don't have to use the scripts at all.

And the stuff about template databases is complete rubbish. PostgreSQL had "CREATE DATABASE" command just like MySQL and other databases (and CREATE USER, CREATE SCHEMA, ...). There's no need to mess with the template databases directly, you don't even need to know about their existence.

Re:Much better anyway

[Cutting_Crew]

postgres also supports geospatial operations, in case you happen to be in that sort of work and don't want to pay silly license fees to people like ESRI.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anrego]

That actually looks decent.. I might check it out!

Re:Much better anyway

[alta]

http://www.navicat.com/en/products/navicat_pgsql/pgsql_overview.html
http://www.sqlmanager.net/products/postgresql/manager

In spite of this, I use mysql.

Re:Much better anyway

[TheRaven64]

Postgres doesn't have a "just give me a damn database" option

$ createdb myDBName

Now I have a new db. Was that really hard? Well, it only works because I am a valid PostgreSQL user. For completeness, I'd also need to do something like:

$ sudo -u postgresql createuser theraven

Actually, the sudo part of this is not required if I am a user that is allowed to create users, but assuming a fresh PostgreSQL install from a standard package.

Re:Much better anyway

[fuzzytv]

Check http://pgadmin.org/ that's 'almost official' PostgreSQL GUI.

And if you need a web-based GUI, use phpPgAdmin (http://phppgadmin.sourceforge.net).

Re:Much better anyway

[RichardJenkins]

A google search for postgres gui should return http://www.pgadmin.org/ on the first page. It seems largely equivalent to MySQL workbench (which I understand replaces the MySQL Admin gui / query browser?)

Re:Much better anyway

[vlm]

Postgres has a much more robust (and as a result considerably more complicated) security setup.Authentication can happen through one or many different means.. most of which require a little configuration and more importantly you need to know they exist/how they work! This also complicates connecting to the database.

For me that's a feature not a bug. Let face it, mysql has had kerberos as a todo for bout a decade now.. its just never gonna happen, and mysql is the only thing I have left that doesn't use kerberos...

One agony is mythtv absolutely does not and will never support postgres, according to the flames I've read from the developers, so I must keep a vestigal legacy install of mysql at home. Everywhere else, work and home, I can flush mysql.

Additionally where MySQL has an ultra friendly console app with built in help for creating users and databases.. postgres has a series of scripts. The default way ot creating a new table is to copy one from a provided template (called template1). Again, this is all stuff you need to learn before doing. Someone can run the mysql command, run help, see "CREATE DATABASE" and kinda go from there. To use postgres you need to know that this template exists, how to use it, and what the hell you are actually doing... and then you need to figure out how to control who has acess to it.

OK now I'm getting confused. Most of my apps do the rails thing or the Perl DBI/DBD thing, so I'm getting conflicting responses both here and in google searches WRT to ye olde fashioned "rake db:create:all". either that works transparently with postgres just like mysql, or using postgres means I have to go back to something like JCL card decks on my old MVS DB2 box. Or occasionally both, depending on bugs and failure modes.

I am absolutely not able to use a web or graphical interface... I don't want to make over 5000 non automatable non documentable mouse clicks that can never be stored in a VCS and can never be reviewed nor backed up nor deployed to new servers at a keystroke. That's a complete non-starter, both at work and home. Admining the DB with a mouse is right up there with submitting my data on punchcards... no thanks.

Re:Much better anyway

[e70838]

When you have serious work with many users, ..., you should NOT use a GUI. You should have procedures and/or scripts. You must keep a log of all your administrative actions and be able to automate actions in order to improve processes. With good administration practices, the workload of the administrator does not increase much with the number of users or servers. Having a good GUI is only good for casual users.

Re:Much better anyway

[Splab]

So if your setup is using the build in logins and not using remote connects, then yes, pgsql is damned easy to set up.

But for those of us who wants to use usernames/passwords and groups to handle login it's a tad annoying to set up. (To be fair, it's by no means impossible, just annoying - it has some quirks that you need to man your way around).

Re:Much better anyway

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Apple Servers are just for the Ultimate Fanboi's or for the small Mac Only shop.

You couldn't pass up the opportunity to use "Apple" and "Fanboi" in a comment, could you?

They really don't offer much of a real advantage. You can get a standard server with Linux and it probably will run much better.

How is this relevant to the topic of Apple choosing PostgreSQL over MySQL? Qualifying your analysis with the word "probably" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement either.

Re:Much better anyway

[FellowConspirator]

I've used PostgreSQL for years and never used templates the way you described. To create a database I've always used:

        CREATE DATABASE mydatabase;

or the createdb command-line utility. Similarly, creating tables:

        CREATE TABLE example ( myfield CHAR(16) NOT NULL );

The only things that are tricky by comparison are related to user authentication and authorization. At the server, level, there's host-based authentication rules and mechanisms that don't exist in MySQL, and in the database you have the concepts of groups and roles that don't exist in MySQL.

Re:Much better anyway

[GGardner]

I always found PostgresQL harder to admin. It needs to be VACUUM'ed periodically. How often? The poor admin is supposed to figure that out themselves. Oh, and don't try to actually use the database during a VACUUM. Even after the autovacuum feature was added, it never seemed to work right, and my databases still needed to be vacuumed by hand, sometimes taking more than a day to run. Even with frequent vacuuming, indexes can get bloated -- I would see indexes with more pages allocated than entries, which needed to be manually reindexed. Worse, you need to tell postgres how much memory to allocate for vacuum'ing, and if you don't get it right, it 'leaks' disk space. None of these sorts of things have ever been a problem for MySQL.

Re:Much better anyway

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

Couldn't agree more. The command line tool psql is immensely flexible and usable. I'm lost in the mysql command line tool :(

Re:Much better anyway

[Alex Belits]

Moar liek praising with faint criticism. Oracle has many flaws but its manageability is reasonably tied to the complexity of setup being managed.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anrego]

I wouldn't .. lots would!

Look around... we live in a world where not just consumers, but the people who actually work with tech want stuff to "just work" without having to know how or why. Not saying this is a good thing (I happen to think it's a terrible thing), but it's a reality. People want simple lego blocks they can glue together.

Re:Much better anyway

[nicodoggie]

Not really sure about the difference in functionality but mysql has geospatial stuff too. Never had a reason to eevn try it out, though--I just remember skimming this section in a reference manual.

Re:Much better anyway

[macshome]

Apple never provided a front end for the MySQL that they used to ship on Mac OS X Server. All it included was a tool to start or stop the DB and to set the MySQL root password.

Re:Much better anyway

[w_dragon]

What issues do you have with MySQL's transaction implementation, assuming you're using innodb tables?

Re:Much better anyway

[fuzzytv]

Not true. Manual vacuuming is not needed since PostgreSQL 8.1, released 2005/11, that's almost 6 years ago. The functionality is called 'autovacuum" and it's fully automatic so you don't need to care about it anymore, and it was significantly improved in the following versions. In some cases you have to tune it a bit (to make it more aggresive for example), but in 99% it works fine out of the box.

Maybe your site was one of those 1% that needed a bit more tuning, or maybe changes at the application level (not everything that works on one database will work fine one another one). Otherwise it's a pure FUD. We're running a lot of applications (with a lot of write activity) on PostgreSQL, and it works perfectly.

Sure, nothing is perfect - for example the memory management is not perfect, you need a bit of experience when setting the memory limits. But I really don't think "leaking to disk" is the right term. You can set 'maintenance_work_mem' and if the process needs more, it has to put that on disk. But with reasonable limit and autovacuum that really does not happen.

Re:Much better anyway

[CastrTroy]

MySQL has a different problem. If you use INNODB and don't use innodb_file_per_table then you have one huge file to store all your tables and indexes, and it is impossible to shrink/vacuum that file short of backing up your database to SQL dump files, deleting the database file, and then recovering from that backup file. So if somebody goes and creates a table that temporarlily uses 50 GB, then it will be impossible to shrink the file back down afterwards. The space will be marked as not in use, and the DB will eventually reuse it, but there's not at easy way to get it back for use by the rest of the OS.

Re:Much better anyway

[marcosdumay]

"Postgres integrates with the normal Unix user accounts so I don't have to worry about users and passwords"

Yes, it integrates with your network's yellow pages infrastructure (beng it MS AD, nis, or watever) or your Linux PC's user system. But let's face it, a big share of the developers use it on Windows. Yep, people develop on Windows... I can't imagine how either, but they do.

Most complaints that Postgres is hard to administrate normaly mean that PgAdmin isn't as powerfull as MySQL Admin. Those people are normaly comparing GUI frontends.

Re:Much better anyway

[mortonda]

I keep hearing that Postgres is hard to admin. Yet Postgres integrates with the normal Unix user accounts so I don't have to worry about users and passwords,

Actually that's exactly what frustrates a lot of people who want to write web applications that run as a different user than the user account that holds the application... thank you apache and php. Even if you do have an environment where the web server is running as the user account, such as php safe mode, or ruby on rails with a passenger phusion server, that prohibits you from having different login credentials for different apps.

Mysql by default, handles its own users and does not have any relationship to unix users.

Yes, postgresql can do thing like mysql, but it has to be be configured in a remote, strangely named config file.

Re:Much better anyway

[PacoCheezdom]

Actually, Apple didn't even have a front-end for MySQL, either. They used to advise installing MyPhpAdmin. (bottom of that page) Really this is an advantage because now I won't have 2-3 installs of MySQL on my system anymore -- the default, rarely updated, Apple version, the more up-to-date version installed by Macports in /opt, and perhaps another version in MAMP or XAMPP if I want to test a web app or design a new site in a quasi-sandbox.

Re:Much better anyway

[Just Some Guy]

I just wish it was a little more user friendly. That was the one thing MySQL had going for it.. dead simple to use and admin..

I totally disagree. I've been using PostgreSQL for years and it makes sense. I've had to deal with MySQL from time to time (usually when setting up a blog or some other app that only supports it) and I never can remember how to do the simplest things without heading off to the online manual.

Is MySQL really harder to use than PostgreSQL? Not really. I'm just not used to it. Is PostgreSQL really harder to use than MySQL? Not really. You're just not used to it.

Re:Much better anyway

[slartibartfastatp]

Having a good GUI is only good for casual users.

It's also good for developing and debugging.

Re:Much better anyway

[bedouin]

I have been an OS X 'fanboy' since 10.1. I cut my teeth on running a server in Linux though, and that's where I continue to feel most comfortable. That said, I'd place myself more in the powr user category who isn't afraid to read man pages and edit config files by hand. OS X is UNIX, but it has it's oddities; considering Apple's less than thrilling support of A/UX, I'm not sure how future OS X server releases will fair.

In Linux you have relative certainty that any open source app can be built, if it's not already in Debian's huge repository (or insert your favorite distribution here). In OS X that's not always true without a lot of haggling, and MacPorts/Fink can only help so much.

Then there are files that would traditionally be in say, /etc on a Linux box but end up in some obscure plist file in OS X. In Snow Leopard Server (maybe Leopard Server, I don't know exactly when it happened) user crontabs were depreciated. Sure you can set them, but they will not survive a reboot; instead you play with launchd. Meanwhile root crontabs work as expected.

If you're comfortable with Apple's way of implementing everything, especially if you've been there since the beginning, I can see the appeal. Apple is not targeting you or I with this though, but small businesses and home users who need a quick and easy way to do server level tasks. I can see myself going for OS X server if I lacked a UNIX background and needed GUI config for rudimentary services. It's not bad, just different. If you're running a lab full of Macs it makes sense . . .

Re:Much better anyway

[GooberToo]

This is a complete, bullshit, troll post.

I always found PostgresQL harder to admin.

Not likely.

It needs to be VACUUM'ed periodically. How often?

For the vast majority of work loads, it happens automatically.

The poor admin is supposed to figure that out themselves.

Nope. Not at all. See above. And there are tools to figure out if this applies. For 99% of MySQL users, they'll never need to know what vacuum is.

I could keep going. Literally nothing in your post is accurate. Everything you said is literally completely wrong or a half truth.

What a troll.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

95% of MySQL installation I did were for Intranet. Internet isn't everything, you know.

Many people I know were turned off by the amount of attention the Postgres requires. Just like Oracle, it ensures steady supply of jobs for DBAs. And also ensures that if company has no capacity to hire a DBA, they would likely go on keeping their information in Excel sheets. And the myth (persisted by DBAs) that there are no simple RDBMSs (ones they can maintain on their own) is what ensures that users go on keeping their data in piles of unbackuped Excel sheets.

Thinking about it again, I'm not even sure what turns me off more: the bloat of the traditional RDBMSs or the elitism of the DBAs.

Re:Much better anyway

[localman]

Just because a person doesn't need to be an expert to use MySQL doesn't mean that an expert won't like MySQL. Many of the things that make it easier for beginners make it easier for experts too. We all have limited time and resources and have to optimize for the situation at hand.

Re:Much better anyway

[kriston]

Naturally your actions are, by default, kept in the database's logs, at least on PostgreSQL and MySQL.

The audit trail requirement certainly does not preclude the effective and responsible use of GUI tools on any database.

Re:Much better anyway

[The Dawn Of Time]

Ahh, hatred. The funniest of all emotions.

Re:Much better anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh...but can you have separate accounts with the same username and different permissions based solely on having different passwords?

Go go gadget sarcasm: Only MySQL was brilliant enough to include that feature.

Re:Much better anyway

[Cyberax]

"Many people I know were turned off by the amount of attention the Postgres requires."

What. The. Fuck???

PostgreSQL is as close to zero-administration database as anything else. It definitely requires LESS administration than MySQL.

Re:Much better anyway

[Midnight Thunder]

The more I read up on Postgres, the more likely I am going to drop MySQL in favour of Postgres. The one thing that kinda keeps me in the MySQL realm is that their command line tools just seem better, though that isn't really much of a reason to stay. Maybe someone can redo the command-line interpreter to be easier to use? Sure this is being said by someone who hasn't greased their wheels in Postgres yet.

One other thing making Postgres more interesting are the PostGIS. On the MySQL side the equivalent project was started but seems to have been parked in an incomplete status.

Re:Much better anyway

[Ossifer]

I have never understood the popularity of MySQL over Postgres. The latter is easier (I administer both), faster, more versatile, etc. The only thing I found better with MySQL is that in some circles, more people use it.

I worked for a company who switched from Postgres to MySQL a few years back, and I joined just after the switch. I asked why the switch was made, and the only answer i could get was "if we ever had to switch, it was at the right time"... WTF? Meanwhile we lost vital things like transactioning that MySQL lacked at the time...

Re:Much better anyway

[Ossifer]

> Yes, postgresql can do thing like mysql, but it has to be be configured in a remote, strangely named config file.

So you have to add a single comment character in a single file once and forever, in order to get postgres to behave like mysql? Damn that is hard!

Re:Much better anyway

[pnaro]

MySQL had Windows support and GUI installer for a long time before PostgreSQL. I wouldn't touch MySQL before version 5.0, and in my company, I only use it for email. All customer databases are PostgreSQL. It just works.

Re:Much better anyway

[Ossifer]

Au contraire--I can use pgadmin3 quite easily with scripts. I do it all the time... You can save logs, etc. and your scripts are still valid if you want to cron job them or whatever...

Re:Much better anyway

[Ossifer]

The command line tools as well as the gui tools are virtually identical in the two products, so neither should be a big concern in considering one over the other.

Re:Much better anyway

[PhrstBrn]

aid is a reference to a.id
bid is a reference to b.id

START TRANSACTION;
INSERT INTO a (id, bid) VALUES(1,2);
INSERT INTO b (id, aid) VALUES(2,1);
COMMIT;

Doesn't work.

Re:Much better anyway

[DragonWriter]

I just wish it was a little more user friendly. That was the one thing MySQL had going for it.. dead simple to use and admin..

PostgreSQL is, IME, dead simple to use and administer, at least in versions from the last half-decade. Before that it had a possibly-earned reputation for complexity in administration and some issues on Windows particularly, but that's not really the case any more.

Re:Much better anyway

[DragonWriter]

Actually that's exactly what frustrates a lot of people who want to write web applications that run as a different user than the user account that holds the application...

It shouldn't, because while it integrates by default, its trivial to login as any database user from any system account.

Even if you do have an environment where the web server is running as the user account, such as php safe mode, or ruby on rails with a passenger phusion server, that prohibits you from having different login credentials for different apps.

No, it doesn't. It is no harder to use different logins for different apps than it is for MySQL. In fact, in most database abstraction libraries, you do it in almost exactly the same way with Postgres as you would with MySQL.

Yes, postgresql can do thing like mysql, but it has to be be configured in a remote, strangely named config file.

Sure, pg_hba.conf is a strangely-named file, but its well-documented what it is and what its format is and where it is located. More importantly, though, the defaults don't prohibit connections to different DB accounts from the same system account, so you don't actually need to touch it to enable the usage you refer to.

Re:Much better anyway

[Adayse]

Postgres easier really? Maybe I should try it again but I'm pretty sure that it's not going to be easier or better or faster this time either. If my application works then I don't switch out the database just for fun, if it doesn't work then a database switch might break it more so the only time I will shop around is when I'm starting a project.

It's easy to understand why MySQL is more popular - MySQL was popular first and easy to setup from the start. The developers were open and responsive. I've been using it since 97 and it's performed well with everything I've done with it. I haven't needed transactions.

Postgres has however always been more popular on /. and I can only attribute that to US vs Europe. If half the effort Postgres proponents have spent bashing MySQL on /. over the years had gone into improving the Postgres manual then setting up Postgres might be easy too. Have you compared the manuals? The Postgres website is defensive. I don't like Oracle though so I would like it if I preferred Postgres.

Re:Much better anyway

[amorsen]

Even if you do have an environment where the web server is running as the user account, such as php safe mode, or ruby on rails with a passenger phusion server, that prohibits you from having different login credentials for different apps.

It seems to me that keeping passwords around in files is security through obscurity. Sure, each app gets its own credentials, but if one app running as a particular user can access a specific database by reading a password from a file, then so can the other apps...

Re:Much better anyway

[jafac]

The biggest flaw of Oracle is the licensing extortion scheme of "price per seat" and "price per cpu". It scales great - but please open your checkbook.

Re:Much better anyway

[lakeland]

Remember back to when you started... not how it is for you now.

MySQL is far easier to get going, and it's far easier for a system adminstrator to dabble in. For instance in MySQL you can fix a large number of database issues at the filesystem level (out of space, corrupt index, etc.). For someone that is still new to the whole SQL thing, that's a huge benefit.

Incidentally, I've heard the same argument applied to Oracle. "Oracle is really easy to manage, for instance look at how hard it is to set up remote log shipping in MySQL".

Re:Much better anyway

[Ossifer]

Can't really respond to how hard it is to deal with a corrupt index in postgres--NEVER HAD ONE!

As for setup when I started, it was ridiculously easy in both mysql and postgres, and annoyingly hard in Oracle and DB2.

Re:Much better anyway

[hazem]

But that's like the joke about the guy brought out of retirement to fix a machine nobody else could fix. He puts a check on a spot and says replace that part. Then they get a bill for $20,000. "But all you did was put a checkmark on the part - we need an itemized bill." So he gives them "1) chalk mark... $1.00; 2) knowing where to put it... $19,999"

It might be as easy as placing a single comment character in a single file, but the trick is knowing that's what is needed. Maybe that's not well documented.

Re:Much better anyway

[shutdown -p now]

Why should it work? The only other alternative would be for a transaction to see an inconsistent (with constraint violations) state of the database.

Re:Much better anyway

[Ossifer]

No my main point was that it's was ludicrous to consider the cost of *making postgres work like mysql*. If you want something to work exactly the way mysql works, I would suggest you use mysql.

It reminds me back in the '90s when I was assigned to teach Java to freshmen. Some of the kids has no experience programming, some had done C++, and others various other languages. Those who had C++ experience had a much more difficult time on average than those with no experience at all.

Re:Much better anyway

[hazem]

Indeed. When you have experience with just one paradigm, moving to the second is probably the hardest. However, once you've done that a few times, at least in my own experience, it gets easier. And if you want something that works like X, often it's just best to use X.

Sadly, my only database experience with with MS SQL Server and Access (though I tend to use access for forms, front-end work, and excel/powerpoint automation). I'm anxious to try one of the open source alternatives for my own personal work and I'm leaning towards Postgresql, but it looks like I'm facing a pretty large learning curve. I enjoy using the Management Studio that comes with SQL 2008 and I haven't seen anything yet (but I haven't made a serious effort) that works in a similar way for Postgresql.

Re:Much better anyway

[PhunkySchtuff]

I just wish it was a little more user friendly. That was the one thing MySQL had going for it.. dead simple to use and admin.. and I imagine Apple's frontend probably made it even more so.

Apple didn't have a frontend to MySQL worth mentioning. In 10.6 Server and prior versions, there was a section for it in Server Admin with three settings.
1 Checkbox for "Allow network connections" – off by default.
1 Text entry box for "Database Location" – default /var/mysql
1 Button for "Set MySQL Root Password..."

There was also a tab in Server Admin where you could view the various log files and an Overview tab that tells you if it's running or not, the start time and if network connections are allowed.

And that was it. For the summary to imply that Apple had more than just command-line access to MySQL is a bit misleading. Sure, you can turn it on and off via the GUI, but you really can't configure much - you can't see or configure your users, tables or databases.

Re:Much better anyway

[Serious Callers Only]

I recently moved a db to psql from mysql, in order to use the full text search (didn't want to use MyISAM for other reasons).

Setup wasn't particularly difficult, but there were one or two stumbling blocks coming from mysql. Setting up password access for the server was not hard - the user accounts thing is no big deal and you can use password auth instead if you prefer, but I was a bit puzzled by the fact it refuses to open without opening a particular database file, so if you don't have a db created for your user, you can't just log in to psql and then choose a database - that seems a bit perverse, and a google found lots of other people with the same issue. They should just auto-create that db for the user if it is the default when starting with no arguments, rather than bailing out with a cryptic message about a database which doesn't exist, when I didn't ask to open a database. No big deal though.

Otherwise it really is a snap to set up - took about 30 minutes all told to migrate from mysql, though I wasn't using any datatypes which cause issues. In spite of things I'd read to the contrary on the internet, it's using less memory than Mysql on the server to server the same site. So to anyone who is considering switching from mysql, I'd say set aside an afternoon and give it a go. It was certainly no harder or more complex than mysql in my experience.

Re:Much better anyway

[Ossifer]

Both MySQL and Postgres have GUI admin tools (combo of mysql query browser + mysql administrator, pgadmin3).

Both are also much closer to "standard SQL" than MS SQL and "unlearning" its weirdnesses may increase the learning curve, but both are easily approachable, all in all. Similarly, if you grew up on Oracle, you'd have a tough time migrating to anything else, probably more so...

Re:Much better anyway

[WhiteDragon]

Postgres doesn't have a "just give me a damn database" option

$ createdb myDBName

Now I have a new db. Was that really hard? Well, it only works because I am a valid PostgreSQL user. For completeness, I'd also need to do something like:

$ sudo -u postgresql createuser theraven

Actually, the sudo part of this is not required if I am a user that is allowed to create users, but assuming a fresh PostgreSQL install from a standard package.

I agree. The createdb and createuser command line tools for PostgreSQL make that super easy.

Re:Much better anyway

[hey!]

Talk about "damning with faint praise"!

I think you miss the Mephistophelean appeal of Oracle's RDBMS.

Let's start with the obvious: simplicity is a matter of complexity and scale. If you are managing a small company's inventory of computers, then a spreadsheet is simple. If you are managing the fixed assets of a fortune 500 company it's no longer simple t use a bunch of spreadsheets. You could create a complex system that ran on a computing cluster and managed thousands of spreadsheets linked by macros, but you wouldn't. That would be complicated than using an industrial strength database platform.

Likewise, you aren't going to install Oracle Real Application Clusters to handle the list of people who have clean-up duty in the office coffee-room.

Oracle's flagship RDBMS, despite it's many real flaws, scales both in complexity and volume very well, probably better than anything other RDBMS. It doesn't have much of a reputation among hackers because most hackers prefer to handle complexity in some kind of application server architectural layer. But Oracle offers some unique (and proprietary) features that are very helpful, even if you aren't a database-centric developer. That is particularly true in advanced handling of transaction isolation, which Oracle handles better than anyone else. Period. There's nothing out there that does less locking as a result of user or DBA actions. It is even possible to "fork" working databases; isolating subsets of users from each others transactions and even schema changes until you're ready to merge. I knew one outfit that handled huge volumes of geospatial data that used this to simplify it's workflow and data release processes. There's other ways of doing that, of course, but it was neat, simple, and above all *proprietary*. That company will never move to anything else, because Oracle solved that problem in the simplest possible way.

As a developer I found Oracle's transaction logging a huge help in diagnosing customer data integrity problems. I wish other products provided such an easy way to track down spurious or erroneous transactions and selectively undo them. It was a huge time saver.

Make no mistake: there are some *really* smart and competent computer scientists and software engineers working for Oracle, and they know data management and transaction control as well as anyone on the planet. Now the *corporate values* of Oracle are a different matter altogether; as is their expertise in user-centric design. There's a lot to criticize about Oracle, but also a lot that deserves sincere praise.

Re:Much better anyway

[maraist]

Two things.
1) fdatasync on 100 files is going to have a higher probability of updating the inode record (because their individual file sizes will have likely grown) - I'm talking to you postgres too. Thus doubling the number of dirty blocks per synchronous commit.
2) Mysql gives you the option of 1 file, a raw partition (i.e. /dev/vg0/INNODB1 2 3, etc), one large regular file or hundreds of little files.
    I tend to choose the hundreds of little files so I can see last-modified time-stamps on my literally hundreds of aging custom databases. But I definitely prefer the consolidated uber-file for performance reasons.

The idea of a database is that the disk belongs to a single process.. So I never understood this idea of recovering deleted disk space. In fact, I'd prefer to pre-allocate the whole damn partition or at least, on an extent-based file-system the ability to have a defragmented single-mathmatically-block-address-lookup storage file. Cold randomly scattered 4KB randomly allocated sectors require log_2k(n) disk lookups per read/write.. contiguous extends take precisely 1 highly-cached lookup.

Re:Much better anyway

[maraist]

Because
show [VERBOSE] XYZ like 'foo%bar';
is so less intuitive than \dl \dt \df \l
And to think, using something that looks like SQL inside a SQL maintenance tool.. arrogant bastards. Don't they know using notepad on 4 config files and reloading the server is the proper way to administer things.

Re:Much better anyway

[maraist]

And why exactly does a production DB need to allow user-level account access? And why would a dev/test DB care about passwords? Are we still living in a day where client apps have passwords directly into the DB as opposed to having a password file in the DB that allows access to the higher level app?

Re:Much better anyway

[SuperMog2002]

Have you actually used PgAdmin on a Mac, or just used it on Windows and/or Linux? The Mac port is hardly a quality piece of software.

• 
  It does database operations in the main thread, causing the GUI to lockup whenever an operation takes a long time. I'm not sure if this is distinct from the other versions, but it's nonetheless aggravating when you have to sit and wait for a doomed connection attempt to timeout before you can do anything else.
• It only supports vertical scrolling from the mouse, despite the fact that 360 degree scrolling of table view windows would be a perfect fit.
• You get exactly one main database browser window, and closing it closes all other opened windows. This may be SOP in Windows, but it's totally out of place on a Mac. It also really messes up your workflow when you're working on 2 or 3 things at once with each on a separate workspace.

PgAdmin does get the job done, but compared to the other applications I use in my day to day workflow (Transmit, Chrome, MacVim, Terminal, OmniFocus, etc.), it really stands out as a pain to use. I wish I had another Postgres GUI I could recommend, but unfortunately, I've yet to find one. Navicat would be a step up, but the pricing on their pro version is so absurd it's laughable, and the lite version is licensed for non-commercial use only. Any of you guys have a good, quality Postgres GUI for Mac to recommend?

Re:Much better anyway

[jrumney]

It gets a bit harder when you need to share a database between two or more users. As well as the database and tables themselves, there are a bunch of other internal things that you need to grant privileges on before things work smoothly. Security by default is of course a feature, however, not a flaw.

Re:Much better anyway

[putaro]

Hmmm -- I run our small business on Postgres. It doesn't require very much attention. Maybe I'm just used to it but I've always found Postgres easier to set up than MySQL.

Re:Much better anyway

[rjstanford]

And unfortunately Informix never got the respect it deserved (even after being bought by IBM for $1Billion (yes, with a B). Mainly because there was no good living in being an Informix consultant, whereas Oracle consultants made bank. I was once half of a two person team administering about 200 production mission-critical high-volume Informix instances - almost never was there an issue. Good thing we weren't relying on billing by the hour!

Re:Much better anyway

[rjstanford]

Agreed. After all, who wants to actually know something about their RDBMS before they start playing DBA? God forbid!

Yup. And by the same token, anyone who wishes to use their computer to store and retrieve email should be able to install and configure sendmail while we're at it!

I'm not a fan of Apple but...

[Kagetsuki]

Good choice.

Re:I'm not a fan of Apple but...

[erroneus]

No doubt. Anything with the Oracle logo I tend to want to back away from. That said, I like Virtualbox and I will be sad when Oracle finally pulls some stunt where I will have to quit using it and return to pirating VMWare Workstation -- I really don't like VMWare Workstation any longer -- just not as easy to use as VBox. (There was a time when VMWS was easier than VBox, but VBox matured greatly with Sun at the helm... fortunately, there is an OSE but it doesn't have the USB support as far as I know... or is it USB 2.0 support... whatever the case, it's still free and I will use it until it's not... and pray that the features of VBox OSE catch up with the main product.)

But backing away from Oracle in a highly public and visible way speaks volumes to the rest of the business community and should serve to make people think a little more about their views on Oracle product usage as not only is it insanely expensive, it is also a bit toxic.

Re:I'm not a fan of Apple but...

[MemoryDragon]

I am using the OSX version of VMWare, and believe me it is easier to use than VBox.
VMWare Fusion that is.

Re:I'm not a fan of Apple but...

[Creepy]

I use both VirtualBox and VMWare daily (but not mac VMWare, and therefore not Fusion) and both tend to have their pluses and minuses in the Windows and Linux world (the two server OS's my current project supports). I can see VMWare being better on mac though - VirtualBox's mac support is relatively new and VMWare has been in that space for a while, so I'm sure the interface and integration are much more refined. On that note, I have a mac loving friend that swears on Parallels and hates VMWare Fusion with a passion, but I have no idea why other than I think Parallels has been in the mac space longer than VMWare (with that guy everything is a holy relic though - from his macbook air to his iPad 2 to his Parallels for those "awful times I need to run Windows," so I take a lot of it with a grain of salt).

Re:I'm not a fan of Apple but...

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, I like Virtualbox and I will be sad when Oracle finally pulls some stunt where I will have to quit using it and return to pirating VMWare Workstation -- I really don't like VMWare Workstation any longer -- just not as easy to use as VBox.

Yeah, I'd be mad at Oracle too, for making you pirate decent software. Awful. Those mean Oracle people must love pirates if they would encourage that sort of thing. .. and VMWare, I mean, how dare they offer VMWare Server and VMWare Player for free and require that you actually pay to use VMWare Workstations?!? I mean, what were they thinking, that they would like to make money for their efforts?!?

Re:I'm not a fan of Apple but...

[MemoryDragon]

Actually I have used both, Parallels and VMWare fusion are pretty much up to par. Not to much difference between the two.

Samba has also been removed from server

[klubar]

SAMBA (Windows file sharing) in no longer included with OS X Server. This is a mixed blessing, as the version of SAMBA that Apple included was very old--and had a number of bugs and vulnerabilities, but it did make it eash to use the Mac as an sever in a PC environment. Although, I never used the frontend others report that Apple put a slick GUI on SAMBA to make it easier to use.

Instead of supporting SAMBA, Apple is going there own way with a competitive solution. I don't know what license Apple is using for their version of Windows file sharing, nor how compatible (or supported it is).

Last time I looked, there are no pre-built SAMBA downloads for the Mac. Perhaps someone will chime in if this is because no one wants one or it is hard to do.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Henriok]

Apple stopped using SAMBA after SAMBA moved to GPL3 and Apple don't want to use such a license.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[drinkypoo]

Last time I looked, there are no pre-built SAMBA downloads for the Mac. Perhaps someone will chime in if this is because no one wants one or it is hard to do.

Using the internets? You fail it.

P.S. I haven't even touched OSX in years...

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[pieterh]

Yes, the reason here seems to be GPL-related, and nothing to do with Oracle and Java. Postgresql uses an MIT/X11 style license. MySQL is GPL. This is a trend at Apple.

The reason, ironically, is probably the GPLv3's anti-patent clauses. My hypothesis is that Apple's lawyers have picked up on this and it's now company policy to avoid GPLv3 software in their stack, at any cost.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[klubar]

Sorry, I should have said recent and pre-built. The versions you referenced are older versions of SAMBA and not binaries.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[drinkypoo]

They build themselves, though, so the objection that they are not binaries is fairly irrelevant. The oldness, of course, is an issue.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[DrgnDancer]

You can get pre-built binaries of virtually every OSS server software for MacOS, and certainly for every remotely popular OSS server software. Fink is good, and I like it because I've used it a lot over the years. MacPorts seems to be more popular these days though. Since OSX is essentially just a POSIX compliant Unix variant with a fancy GUI, ports are extremely trivial to make. I will warn you that X-windows based software from these sources are a bit flaky sometimes, mostly becasue Apple's X overlay for Cocoa is a piece of crap; but the command line and server tools are dead solid.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[jellomizer]

GPL3 is in response to companies that found a way to make money and secure a market using GPL2 technology. I would have been happier if GPL3 stated that if you put your patented code in a GPL program you are agreeing to allow you patent free and unencumbered use in all GNU/GNU Compatible code.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[CharlyFoxtrot]

It's not prebuilt but Macports has ports for samba 3.2.15 and samba 4.0.0tp5. Installing from Macports isn't difficult for anyone with a modicum of unix savvy.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[CharlyFoxtrot]

There's also a big security push in Lion with encryption, sandboxing, etc. Since there seems to a consensus that Postgresql is more secure that might also be part of it.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[goarilla]

Esound is broken though !

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[fuzzytv]

MySQL is not just GPL - there are two licenses, MySQL and GPL, and they can drop GPL whenever they want. Although that could cause more trouble with the EU, because they've done some promises regarding the free version.

Anyway the promises were quite unclear so there were rumors the free version won't get the fixes as often as the commercial version, some of the features will be missing etc. And AFAIK there are parts that are not GPL-licensed at all, so the sources are not available (most notably unit tests, which makes forking much more difficult), but I may be wrong.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[hattig]

The OS supports SMB, just with an internal solution instead of Samba.

Apart from losing support for acting as a domain controller (1990's stuff), you get all the functionality that you need.

So what's the problem?

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[FictionPimp]

How do you pick from fink, macports, or homebrew? I could never use one because I can't seem to figure out which of the 3 competing projects is the better choice.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[somersault]

Oh yes, someone else mentioned one of the main reasons I couldn't be bothered with Macports - the way X applications were handled wasn't very graceful at all. I used Ubuntu until they made Unity the default - now I'm using Mint, and quite content with it.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Archangel Michael]

" becomes much less valuable if you can't replace the original binary with your adapted version."

It is less free. That makes it less valuable.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Sloppy]

The whole TIVO clause is nothing more than "I don't like what you're doing with my software I said was free, so I'm making it less free, and calling it more free".

More like "I don't like that you've taken software that I tried to make perpetually user-auditable and user-maintainable, and found a way to prevent users from having the capacity to audit or maintain it."

As soon as you look at the question in terms of "less free" or "more free" you will get it wrong. It's not about degrees of freedom; it's about whose freedom when there's a conflict. GPL3 looks at the situation where developers' and users' interests conflict, and like Tron, fights for the users.

This is dead simple to understand if you go back and look at the roots of all this stuff. RMS wasn't just a programmer; he was a guy who had a printer that he wanted to use. It is really cool that a lot of programmers have followed his ideals, but dudes, it's not for us. It's for them (the people who hire us) because we recognize that sometimes we're them. Unless you're totally building all your computers out of transistors from the ground up, you're always one of "them," to some degree.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Bill_the_Engineer]

MySQL has always been GPL 2.0 licensed. I doubt the license played a role. Maybe it's the new copyright owner or maybe Apple liked PostgreSQL better this time around.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[CharlyFoxtrot]

"I just know it's much less hassle to install stuff on Linux than try to force OSX to work the way I want it to."

Fixed that for you. For me for a simple home server it'd go OSX, OpenSolaris, FreeBSD, then Linux just based on my personal preferences and level of experience with the different OS's. Choice, got to love it.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[DaleGlass]

I must be imagining working in a company that mostly works on GPL2 and GPL3 software.

Nothing in the GPL3 makes making money harder than the GPL2 does.

So I'll develop for a closed platform where I have the potential to keep my kids fed and invest in their college. And the community isn't openly hostile to the idea of me being successful.

That's perfect, I'll continue releasing GPL3 released software for precisely the same reason.

You see, I get my payment either via code or money. I get code if you comply with the GPL and release your improvements. I get money if you're unhappy with that and negotiate a different deal with me. You finding a way around the GPL2 that lets you technically comply while escaping its intent is a negative for me, so I have absolutely no reason to let that loophole stand. That's why I now license everything under the (A)GPL3.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[CharlyFoxtrot]

How do you pick from fink, macports, or homebrew? I could never use one because I can't seem to figure out which of the 3 competing projects is the better choice.

Try them out, see what you like best. Macports has been around the longest and is the most mature so it's a good place to start. I'm using Homebrew myself right now, it plays nice with stuff that's already installed in OSX instead of installing its own versions and installs in /usr/local by default, just where it like it. Though if you want a recent version of samba Macports is the way to go right now, there's no recipe in Homebrew yet AFAIK.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Not to mention that there's nothing stopping Apple (except for perhaps corporate arrogance and "not invented here" syndrome) from negotiating a different license just as they would with any other company's code that they want to avoid passing along rights for. "Hey, Samba, we'd like to use your software, but this patent clause kind of worries us - how about we negotiate different terms for Apple corporation?" Not really any different from "Hey, Microsoft, we're getting out of the server market, so we'd like to use Microsoft Azure for our new Apple iCloud, how about we negotiate terms for Apple Corporation?"

This whole weird "permissive" spin has been getting pushed in the media lately. The GPL's "you can't add further restrictions when redistributing" clauses make the GPL "less free" only in the same way that the US Constitution is now "less free" because it now forbids me from becoming a slave (even if I want to).

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[yeshuawatso]

You've completely missed the point of the GPL, it was never about money, it was about giving people choice. When I develop software that's open source, my intentions are to have a great piece of software accomplish a task and share this software with others. If they feel they need to make a change to it for their liking, then go for it; however, if they make a change and deliberately prevent others from making a change in the future, then you've abandoned my principles for the sake of your profit line. You've deliberately truncated the freedoms of others in order to get an advantage over your competitor. If I wanted to deliver an exclusive license to just you that doesn't apply to anyone you distribute my code to, then I would have given you a license to do so. I don't mind if you take my hard work and make money off it, I do mind when you take my hard work and remove the freedoms I granted you and anyone you distribute my software to in order to make money. If you stick to my principles, then make a mountain of cash and I won't ask for a dime. Violate my intentions for that cash, then I'll ensure you don't get to keep a single red cent.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Creepy]

GPL3 is a (commercial) plague - anything that uses any GPL3 library MUST comply by GPL3 and any license that is not GPL3 becomes GPL3, so Apple had to abandon SAMBA - if they integrate a SAMBA interfacing gui into their OS (which they did under GPL2), they immediately are required to release the entire OS under the GPL.

IMO, GPL3 is an extension of a religious war between Richard M Stallman (RMS) and the commercial world. RMS believes all software should be free and is willing to force his belief by any means necessary, and others like me think that is absurd and would be a giant leap backwards toward 1970. Imagine having to buy all games on hard media today with built in DRM (so the software developers get paid) - it is inane in the world of Steam and digital downloads, but that is exactly what RMS is demanding (or we can just charge $50000 for each console or PC - imagine the sticker shock there!). If I were, say, Apple and had such a requirement, I would never release software upgrades without forcing the user to buy new hardware - again, just silly.

OTOH, I can understand RMS's love of hacker culture and available source - View Source is an amazing way to learn html, and probably was the single biggest driver of early web development, and may be the primary reason why html destroyed similar but competing technologies like gopher. As someone that created content for both gopher and the web early on and mocked early html (which lacked the graphical browser gopher had - it was a text only interface in 1990 and had very limited capability), I sure picked the wrong technology to bet on. A couple of years later I saw World Wide Web on the NeXT boxes and was blown away, but I really didn't start making my own pages until Mosiac the next year (the school had limited availability of the NeXT boxes and I had no access whatsoever aside from through friends), and by the Netscape beta I had completely fallen in love with html (which had a similar but simpler syntax than gopher, since it was largely borrowed from gopher).

I feel there is space for both free software and commercial software and I can understand why there is a GPL3, but I have a hard time validating using it because of its invasive license. It is less like "free as in speech" and more like "free as in herpes viral infection" - you can give it to everyone and you can't get rid of it.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Hatta]

How do I mount CIFS shares from the command line now? Does it work the same as with SAMBA?

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[pieterh]

No, Apple cannot simply negotiate a different license. The main point of the GPLv3 (as earlier versions) is to ensure reciprocity, i.e. I'll share my work with you (stranger) if you share your improvements back with me. Various firms, mainly Microsoft and Tivo, had figured out ways to subvert that social contract in GPLv2.

Now, the most efficient form of GPL-driven community does not have a single owner of the collective work, precisely because that gives a way for firms to subvert the contract again. A stranger with sufficient money can negotiate a non-GPL contract, and escape the reciprocity requirement. This reduces the economic incentive for contributors and makes the project overall less successful.

Thus a project like Samba, or ZeroMQ, does not centralize copyright ownership but allows every contributor to own their own work, and this guarantees reciprocity. Apple cannot buy their way out of that requirement. They would have to get a license from every individual contributor separately.

While this is probably very annoying to Apple (and they have asked my firm, for example, for non-GPL licenses for ZeroMQ on multiple occasions), it is the most economically satisfying to contributors, who are guaranteed that no-one can cheat the rules, no matter how rich they are.

The GPL is essentially an ultra-capitalist instrument, which economists are starting to realize, and only the old trolls try to hide under their "hippy commie we want the freedom to cheat" nonsense. The GPL creates wealth on a massive scale to all those who participate in the social contract. Firms that don't or can't use it will eventually lose out.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[E IS mC(Square)]

>> This is the type of thinking in the GPL community that keeps MS and Apple far above Linux in real usage.

Because ideology does not have any value, right?

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Nimey]

Assuming the packages will build. A nontrivial number of packages or their prerequisites from Macports didn't compile last time I used it.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Just Some Guy]

GPL3 is a (commercial) plague - anything that uses any GPL3 library MUST comply by GPL3 and any license that is not GPL3 becomes GPL3, so Apple had to abandon SAMBA - if they integrate a SAMBA interfacing gui into their OS (which they did under GPL2), they immediately are required to release the entire OS under the GPL.

So many statements, and not a single one factually correct. I applaud your determination!

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[somersault]

The original wording was fine, and applies to everyone who wants to do something that is awkward under OSX. I've remembered my specific issues now, and they were that trying to get certain CPAN modules working under OSX was a nightmare, and also X apps were ugly as f***. No sensible choice there but to switch to an OS with more solid support and consistent aesthetics. I grew up with Macs, and I like OSX, but I can't think of a single thing about it that I miss.. wait, one of the screensavers was pretty cool. But that's it.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[CharlyFoxtrot]

The original wording was fine, and applies to everyone who wants to do something that is awkward under OSX. I've remembered my specific issues now, and they were that trying to get certain CPAN modules working under OSX was a nightmare

I tempted to use that old FOSS chestnut "it's open source why don't you just fix it" but I'd just be trolling. Maybe it was just another example of how certain FOSS developers are writing code with Linux in mind to the detriment of portability. But you got to go with what works, more power to you.

and also X apps were ugly as f***.

Who in their right mind would use X apps on OSX except as a last resort ? You could bitch about support for X in Windows and it's make about as much sense.

No sensible choice there but to switch to an OS with more solid support and consistent aesthetics.

Linux as a paragon of consistent aesthetics? Now I've heard everything.

I grew up with Macs, and I like OSX, but I can't think of a single thing about it that I miss.. wait, one of the screensavers was pretty cool. But that's it.

Like I said choice is good.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Creepy wrote:

"GPL3 is a (commercial) plague - anything that uses any GPL3 library MUST comply by GPL3 and any license that is not GPL3 becomes GPL3, so Apple had to abandon SAMBA - if they integrate a SAMBA interfacing gui into their OS (which they did under GPL2), they immediately are required to release the entire OS under the GPL."

Can I have some of your 'shrooms please, they must be *really* good :-).

This is so far from the truth it's easier just to point at this:

ftp://www.samba.org/pub/samba/slides/linuxcollab-why-samba-went-gplv3.pdf

and hope people read it than to try and rebut your ravings.

Jeremy.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Darinbob]

There is truth about the religious war that RMS is leading against the commercial world. I strongly believe GPLv3 was created in response to the popularity of GPLv2 open source by people with the wrong ideology. RMS should have applauded the use of GPL in the Tivo and pointed with pride to the GPL printed in the manual for every consumer to see.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[SuiteSisterMary]

Let me Google that for you.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[somersault]

Who in their right mind would use X apps on OSX except as a last resort ?

I wanted to use OpenOffice, I think that's pretty reasonable.

Linux as a paragon of consistent aesthetics? Now I've heard everything.

Yep I thought it was pretty funny, but it's true that Ubuntu and Mint have consistent borders and system tray even when using stuff like WINE - while trying to use X apps on OSX was just a mess. I'm sure it could be fixed, or maybe it already has been.. but it was fun to point it out nevetheless.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Archangel Michael]

The GPL2 was about sharing code.It wasn't even about 'choice' as you think. It was "if you use our code, cool. If you make changes, cool, just release the changes." PERIOD.

GPL3 violates that tenant which is why I hate it. I've actually read the GPL3, and there are some horribly written requirements in it, having nothing to do with code or sharing, but how it gets used. It crossed a barrier that makes it not free.

I know I get modded troll for not liking GPL3, but I'm not a troll. I love the GPL2 and what it stands for. I think GPL3 is a huge step backwards from freedom, and the fallout of it is just now beginning. GPL3 may kill a large portion of FOSS in a great number of places, simply because it puts way too many "Usage" restrictions on the playing filed.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[anarkhos]

Why do you have to pick?

If something is available on fink I try it first because I don't have to compile it. Some things which I want updated more regularly like WINE I use darwin ports for. I haven't used homebrew yet, but it doesn't interfere with the other two.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[Sxooter]

RMS is not anti-profit / anti-commercial. He is anti-closed source. They are not the same thing.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I wanted to use OpenOffice, I think that's pretty reasonable.

The reason people started NeoOffice was to have OpenOffice on the mac with a real native UI back before OpenOffice finally got it together and released a version with a native interface (a couple of years ago now.) I used NeoOffice for a time back when, it was adequate which is also pretty much how I'd describe OpenOffice.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Yes. The real reason Apple have dropped MySQL is that they're purging everything that's licensed under GPL3, because of their new business model of patent trolling.

Yeah, it has absolutely nothing to do with the EFF saying they can't distribute anything GPL3ed on the App Store.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Are you complaining that there is too much choice on the Mac?

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[metamatic]

Apple chose their app store terms to prohibit GPL3 software distribution. They could easily have not done so for OS X.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

The EFF would have found another Anti-Apple clause for GPL3+. Better not deal with those guys.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server

[metamatic]

The EFF has no say over the GPL3's terms or Apple's terms. Their opinion is just opinion, nothing more.

The fact that GPL3 software can't be locked down isn't a problem, it's a feature. The fact that Apple is gradually locking down the Mac, that's the problem, speaking as a Mac user.

Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[cryfreedomlove]

Why pay Mac premiums for a server? Macs are great for carrying around (my preference) but I'm not sure why I'd put one in a rack.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[vlm]

Why pay Mac premiums for a server? Macs are great for carrying around (my preference) but I'm not sure why I'd put one in a rack.

The capex is pocket change compared to the labor expense, unless you're doing something absolutely huge or crazy. The "mac premium" is somewhere between one days salary for me, and one days consulting fee. Its to the point where "how quickly you can unpack the shipping box" is a major portion of the labor expense differential between apple vs PC.

I assume the local apple store provides fantastic support to server buyers just as they do for everyone else; for a small business owner this is vital.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[Haedrian]

Because management thinks that they're cool.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[seebs]

I've been running OS X Server for a couple of years now. Got a Mini, put Server on it, and the time it's saved me compared to doing my own admin on more conventional systems has totally been worth it. I like it.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[Henriok]

As a Office with about 100 Macs a Mac server is a good and cheap way of getting many services. One neat feature is Spotlight as we have millions of files across 6 TB of data, that is automatically indexed and reachable within seconds. File Sharing, IM, print, VPN, DNS, Directory Services, NetBoot, NetRestore, Package deployment, Software Update server, Calendaring server, Address book server, iOS device management, roaming profiles, wiki, mail. We use it all, and its only 50 bucks. If you value your time, it's a pretty sweet deal.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[Vectormatic]

Didnt apple stop selling the x-serve though? The only option for a (new) server running OS-X would be either minis or mac-pro's (only an idiot would be something with an expensive integrated screen for a server), both of which are consumer hardware and miss features which are pretty much a must once you get into serious server stuff.

a mini/mac pro as a fileserver for a small business might not be bonkers, but beyond SOHO use, why would anyone bother with a mac server?

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[stickystyle]

a mini/mac pro as a fileserver for a small business might not be bonkers, but beyond SOHO use, why would anyone bother with a mac server?

SOHO / SMB is their target now. A mac mini with RAID-1 drives is more than sufficient, and many times more capable than what I see a lot of small business using.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[UnknowingFool]

I think Apple stop making the XServe for practicality. Businesses that wanted rack-mounted hardware were getting them from Dell, HP, and IBM. Businesses that needed SOHO servers would be fine with a MacPro or Mac mini. So rather than continue to make a product few wanted, they tweaked it to where they could have far more sales.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[DrgnDancer]

Minis can be densely packed in a rack, making them pretty popular for some types of HPC applications and such. A few years ago, when I still had my hands a bit deeper into the HPC and simulation areas of computation I was also starting to see people use them for video clusters. I've been out of that game for a few years though (2008 was my last Supercomputing), so I dunno how any of that worked out or if it's still common.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[jedidiah]

Wasting money is still wasting money, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

Trivializing money is a mentality that just doesn't end well.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[FellowConspirator]

Exactly. Apple's looking at serving the small-business and home server market, not the enterprise. They aren't pretending otherwise. Of course you aren't going to put a bunch of Apple-branded servers in your data-center as the center of your multi-national enterprise. You may, however, put one on the shelf in your real-estate office, or a closet at your catering business.

It's the 21st century. There's school-kids putting up servers for their scout troops, and servers in flower-shops, and print-shops. That's the sort of thing Apple's going for. The majority of the people that could use a server don't need enterprise-scale and cannot accommodate racks and data-rooms.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[jedidiah]

Yes. RAID drives in a box that isn't really meant to be serviced by the end user.

That's exactly what a small business needs.

That's about the dumbest approach you could take. There are much better ways of going about this even if you choose to fixate on Apple products.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[Cronock]

a mini/mac pro as a fileserver for a small business might not be bonkers, but beyond SOHO use, why would anyone bother with a mac server? OTA iOS device management? Golden-triangle support for mac management in an enterprise? Wiki Server? But you do realize your saying "but beyond it's primary purpose, why would anyone want it?". SOHO is currently their target market for the mini server. It really makes for an awesome server for somebody like me who's self employed and using it for web, email/webmail, calendar, address book, VPN hosting. Setting all this up requires little knowledge of anything underneath the GUI, but a knowledge of DNS is fairly helpful. And most sysadmins, whether they like macs or not, could have one up and running most all services in less than pizza delivery time. IT consultants are expensive, so getting something a child could manage has serious financial rewards for a tiny business.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[TheRaven64]

The XServe never had a business case, it existed just because Steve wanted Pixar to be an Apple-only company. Now that Pixar is owned by Disney, this is less of an issue. It was just a marketing tool so that people couldn't say that even Steve Jobs has to use non-Mac systems.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[DogDude]

"I assume the local apple store provides fantastic support to server buyers just as they do for everyone else; for a small business owner this is vital."

As a small business owner, there is nothing more that I want to do than to drive my server down to the local mall when I'm having a problem. (Hint: Successful small businesses generally don't use Apple products).

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[Cronock]

Not to mention how much you save in licensing costs! If you've ever looked into licensing prices for windows servers, a few user licenses cost more than a Mac Mini with unlimited clients.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[mla_anderson]

Wasting money is still wasting money, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

Trivializing money is a mentality that just doesn't end well.

If the use of Lion Server saves time for an expensive employee or contractor, then it's not trivializing money and instead is making the smart financial choice. This is the point the GP was making.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[rrossman2]

They're used at Penn State fairly heavily, and I know so for the Education College. There's a lot of Macs used both by employees in the Education College, as well as by students, and the XServes are used in a rack to host the stuff for the Mac systems (using for example OpenDirectory pushing stuff from the Active DIrectory windows servers, as well as for DeployStudio and other uses)

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[LWATCDR]

The premium isn't that high for a SOHO setup.
If you are a MAC office and you want a server a mac mini server is $999 You get a quad core i7 4GB of ram and two 500 GB drives in a RAID. Yes you could build the same thing for about half the price and put freenas on it but that isn't cost effective for everyone.
The Apple server will be easy to configure, it has some pretty good software services right out the box, it will be small, silent, and will work really well with Macs right out of the box.
If you have a Mac office and are not super computer literate then it can be a good choice. In other words you pay a bit more for features you may not find of value. But let's say that it takes you a week to get that freenas box working just they way you want it. How much is a week of your labor worth? If you can plug this box in and get it working in hour or so then the math is very different.
Oh and I do not own a Mac myself but I have spent time setting up servers for people and a mini would be ideal for say a small law or real estate firm that doesn't want a mini tower setting someplace. Now they need to integrate Asterisk on Mac Server! Set up iPhones with SIP clients. If the sip client is attached to the server then you route the calls to SIP client, if not you forward them to iPhone.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[UnknowingFool]

There is a business case for XServe, it's just the demand for them was small and Apple didn't feel the need to keep the product going. I think the origin was Virginia Tech's Big Mac supercomputer. In their first iteration, they used Power Macs but wanted rack mounted servers. In the second iteration, they got XServes. Over time though customers who wanted the high density were getting blades instead and SOHO customers didn't want rack mounted.

As for Pixar, to my knowledge, they have always used Linux farms for final rendering. Day to day work is done on workstations which include Mac Pros and other manufacturers. Except for Jonathan Ive helping the Walleye team with the design for EVE I don't know that the two companies collaborate all that much.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[TheRaven64]

It sounds like you don't have much experience with small businesses. Most of them don't have IT staff. Being user-servicable is not a requirement for them, because they don't employ anyone competent to do it. When stuff breaks, they want to be able to get it repaired or replaced quickly. If they use a Mac Mini as a server and a Time Capsule as a backup, then they can get a new Mac Mini and restore the backup without needing any technical competence in house. Even if the Apple hardware costs them twice as much, then it's still a lot cheaper than having to employ someone to manage your server.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[__aazsst3756]

Mac server license is not per user like another popular server with a widely used gui. This alone had admins at my last company with 300 employees considering it. Sadly the in house IT (with 4 year degrees) at that company did not understand our BSD servers, got tired of paying consultants for admin help, chucked the BSD servers out the window and wrote MS a huge paycheck.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[NatasRevol]

So tell us what you actually use in a practical way.

What do you use for filesharing that can provide near instant search results across 500,000 files of 10+TB?
What do you use to support iOS devices?
What do you use to support end user Macs?

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[vlm]

Most of them don't have IT staff

Most? More like all, unless the small business is an IT consulting firm. Or at best you've got someone's college age kid who can help out... who probably owns a mac laptop / ipod / other apple products etc.

If they use a Mac Mini as a server and a Time Capsule as a backup, then they can get a new Mac Mini and restore the backup without needing any technical competence in house.

And if it doesn't work, isn't the local apple store where they bought it pretty much unique in the industry? The closest thing I know of to an apple store is the Best Buy guys, and lets face it, the only technical skill they're experts on is maximizing their sales commissions...

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[UnknowingFool]

It's interesting because Apple has always targeted consumers yet people are surprised that they are doing so with server products. The need for SOHO servers is increasing and even MS is trying to make money with Windows Home Server. But that has its limits. Otherwise the only way to get one was to use Linux which is very capable but requires a degree of technical knowledge.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[UnknowingFool]

Er? As far as their computers go, the only thing proprietary about OS X is Aqua. Otherwise OS X is BSD. I find myself using the command line most of the time to admin in a variety of open source software. Also forgive me asking but what version of Unix isn't proprietary in some way? AIX, HP UX, Solaris: they all have their lockins.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[NatasRevol]

You might want to go look at some sales figures from Apple lately. It won't justify your 'companies probably don't use Macs, iPhones or iPads, so I don't need to answer support questions' line of reasoning. Especially when you compare it to other vendor's sales numbers.

My guess is you'll need an Apple server to answer all of my questions.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[jcr]

The XServe never had a business case, it existed just because Steve wanted Pixar to be an Apple-only company.

No, Pixar really didn't have much to do with it, and it was pretty much Rubinstein's idea. The Xserve existed because there was a demand for a dedicated machine for OS X Server. It did pretty well, just not well enough to remain interesting for a company of Apple's scale. Alex Grossman went and started his own company selling a replacement for the XServe RAID, and he's doing very well.

-jcr

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[jcr]

the demand for them was small

Not really. It just wasn't big enough for Apple.

-jcr

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[bedouin]

The Army or Navy was using them with PPC Linux I believe.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Minis can be densely packed in a rack, making them pretty popular for some types of HPC applications and such. A few years ago, when I still had my hands a bit deeper into the HPC and simulation areas of computation I was also starting to see people use them for video clusters. I've been out of that game for a few years though (2008 was my last Supercomputing), so I dunno how any of that worked out or if it's still common.

Mac Mini does not a server make.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[bedouin]

Just a simple example of what you said. Say there's 30 Macs and a new, 1gb OS X update comes out. OS X server can download that update and then distribute it to each client without 30 machines killing the bandwidth. Some small businesses may only have a 5mb DSL line and something small like that helps,

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[crawling_chaos]

I have never used any Apple server, don't know anybody using them or having used them and I never even heard about them.

Ah yes, the opinion of an Anonymous idiot on the Internet. I should definitely trust that you are the end all and be all of experience on this matter, as I don't know anyone who knows you or knew you and I have never heard of you.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[stickystyle]

Right, it's not really ment to be end user serviced, because most end users are not capable of servicing a dead drive. You simply pay $149 to extend you AppleCare coverage to three years when you purchase your shiny new macmini server, and when a drive fails they can walk it into an apple store and the "Genius" will replace the drive for them, no extra charge.

THAT is exactly what small businesses need. I've worked large multi-national enterprise IT, and I've worked small business; oftentimes my "Enterprise" brain wants to kick in and build out a fully redundant setup for a small business that is only employing 8 people making a few thousand profit each month. In my mind of five nines of uptime it makes sense, but for those 8 people it makes no sense at all.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[NiteShaed]

You're kind of proving his point. Your own post implies that the other servers require more work to become a competent admin than the OS X server does. Protip: A business that has a single Mac Mini server probably is not going to have a dedicated IT staff (or even single IT person) hanging around to do administration. It's very possible that the admin is also the owner/accountant/cashier/shipping clerk/janitor and really doesn't have the time or the inclination to go with a "real server" just so he can prove how l33t he is on /.

The choice of OS X Server over Linux or {insert server variant here} says more about the admin than it does the software in question

Seems to say something about both actually....if an inexperienced admin can get the desired results out of an OSX server that would take a more skillful Linux admin to get on other systems, the OSX software would appear to be easier to use. The skill of the admin isn't necessarily indicated though, as an expert is free to use "easier" tools if he likes, but a novice can not necessarily use the most complex ones.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[j-beda]

As a small business owner, there is nothing more that I want to do than to drive my server down to the local mall when I'm having a problem. (Hint: Successful small businesses generally don't use Apple products).

I am not sure how much "generally" means, but I do a fair bit of support for successful small business people using Apple products, and turn away a whole bunch of potential work from successful small business people using Windows systems ('cause I do not want to work on Windows systems). In my experience, those with both types of systems encounter more troubles that are harder to address on the Windows side of things.

In any case, I see little evidence that using Apple products is a barrier to being successful, and for most of my clients moving away from Windows products tends to be good business decision.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'?

[Cronock]

Citation? Holy crap just go to microsoft.com. Not like they hide CAL prices. It's painful to look at and you call us fanbois

MySQL can still be installed

[UnknowingFool]

To be clear, MySQL can be installed on Lion; it's just no longer installed by default.

Re:MySQL can still be installed

[DrgnDancer]

To be more clear, the server version of Lion can still have MySQL installed, but the server package doesn't include it by default.

Re:MySQL can still be installed

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Why not, as long as it's not started up by default what's the harm ? Disk space isn't exactly at a premium these days.

Re:MySQL can still be installed

[Dog-Cow]

It's used by services that are installed by default.

Re:MySQL can still be installed

[willy_me]

To be more clear, the server version of Lion can still have MySQL installed, but the server package doesn't include it by default.

Any version can have MySQL installed but Lion, even the server version, does not have it. It is not even listed as an optional install from the Apple website. If you want it just download, configure, and make. Or use MacPorts - and Apple subsidized project.

Not understanding the concern...

[bhunachchicken]

"The article speculates that the change is because MySQL is now Oracle property, and Apple is concerned about IP issues following all the legal issues surrounding Java"

Okay, but isn't MySQL open source? Are they bothered that Oracle might bring forth a patent war against them? Surely Apple need only point out that these things have existed in MySQL for years before Oracle acquired it..?

Also, couldn't Apple simply say they are supply an open source database for free with the server and therefore get away with it? Or doesn't it work that way?

I'm starting to get really bugged by the number of patent wars flaring up right now. It's like watching a load of spoilt children fighting in a playground about who gets to go on the swings first...

Re:Not understanding the concern...

[TheSHAD0W]

The Java engine was supposed to be open-source, too.

Re:Not understanding the concern...

[UnknowingFool]

If it's true I'm thinking Apple is trying to avoid any conflicts with Oracle. Yes, the user can install MySQL after they buy an Apple, but since Apple doesn't install it for them they don't have to deal with any of Oracle's demands on them in terms of licensing, etc.

Re:Not understanding the concern...

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

I'm starting to get really bugged by the number of patent wars flaring up right now. It's like watching a load of spoilt children fighting in a playground about who gets to go on the swings first...

And I'm LOVING it. While the average Slashdot reader is more than familiar with how thoroughly fucked-up the American patent system (and IP law in general) is, the average Joe hasn't a clue as to how our own backwards legal system is helping turn us into a third world country. It's exactly these kinds of range wars that are going to bring it to the general publics attention. Further, when big business, like Google for example ;) start coming out AGAINST our IP laws because they can no longer do business in this ridiculous environment, then they'll start to pay to see some action from our fucktards in Washington.

Re:Not understanding the concern...

[MemoryDragon]

I rather doubt ip is the problem, more along the lines that postgres is the db with the higher quality and really enterprise ready.

Re:Not understanding the concern...

[w_dragon]

I've worked in enterprises running Oracle. I've worked in enterprises running MySQL. I've only once worked in an enterprise that was running postgres and that company was working on transitioning to MySQL. Anecdotal, of course, but I'm just not seeing any enterprises that agree with your assertion that postgres is better.

Re:Not understanding the concern...

[rubycodez]

there is reason to fear using Oracle's products, if I make my some of my own libraries for parts of their API I think are implemented poorly, Oracle might claim I've implemented something compatible but not quite their product. Oracle might sue a customer for a buck. that's the SCO Group mentality

Re:Not understanding the concern...

[marcosdumay]

"There are, however, lawsuits around implementing a compatible but not quite Java VM."

So, it is open source, as long as you don't change anything in the code. You are using Microsoft's definition of "open source".

Re:Not understanding the concern...

[The Dawn Of Time]

And you're using a typical Slashdotter's reading comprehension skills.

Re:Not understanding the concern...

[MemoryDragon]

YMMV I have seen enterprises migrating from Oracle to postgres successfully due to cost reasons, and they were pretty happy afterwards with it.

Re:Not understanding the concern...

[MemoryDragon]

Btw. sidequestion, why has the enterprise moved away from Postgres to MySQL? I have yet to see a case where people once they learned it were unhappy with Postgres that thing is a bugfree workhorse. The enterprise which moved away from oracle to postgres was a public health insurance company btw...

A PostgreSQL farm

[tepples]

I'm told the main difference between installation of postgres vs mysql is [which package to install]

Is this for one user and one database on a box, or potentially hundreds of databases, one for each hosting customer?

Re:A PostgreSQL farm

[vlm]

I'm told the main difference between installation of postgres vs mysql is [which package to install]

Is this for one user and one database on a box, or potentially hundreds of databases, one for each hosting customer?

A dozen boxes, more or less one admin, either one customer or a dozen departments or hundreds of users depending how you look at it, dozen databases, hundreds of tables.

Currently backup and deployment of new boxes are currently pretty tightly linked... bring up a new box, run a script to inject last nights backup of the schema and data from another box, run a script to tweak local box config values in the DB (just a bunch of SQL update table blah set blah = 'new' where blah='old'). Essentially bringing up a new box is the automated "restore" script followed by automated "customization" script. Lots of Puppet, if you're familiar with that automation system. Hoping I can keep on doing things that way, same concepts just a different backend.

Conceptually I'm dreaming swapping out the backend DB should be about as complicated as swapping out the mysql db engine from innodb to myisam and back. During a maint window, automation to dump it, modify it, import it, theoretically a quick hands off change. Realistically its looking like a whole heck of a lot of work. All to get Kerberos logins. Which has successfully generated a loss of motivation to actually do it.

Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software

[improfane]

Is it though? Why would you buy an Apple server for open source software that you could install yourself?

Re:Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Makes sense for home or small business use especially for all-Apple shops. Apple's big on using open source where it makes sense (and where the license is compatible), it permeates OSX.

Re:Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software

[improfane]

You pay an awful lot for that privilege.

Re:Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software

[wkcole]

Integration and maintenance effort.

Re:Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You pay an awful lot for that privilege.

Based on what? TCO? Features vs. Cost? Beige Box vs. Brand Name? Please enlighten me.

Re:Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software

[CharlyFoxtrot]

A mac mini is pretty cheap, easy to hide away and has low power consumption. I never had one die on me either.
Lion server is only $49.99 (plus $29 if you need to upgrade to Lion first.) That's very reasonably priced in my book. I think it might be actually less than I paid for a SuSE boxed set I bought back in the day.

Re:Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software

[TheRaven64]

One reason would be ease of backup. If you buy a 2TB Time Capsule as well then you have automatic backup and non-technical user can trivially find and restore old versions of files that they accidentally deleted from the file server. If your server dies, you can just plug a new one into the network and restore from the Time Capsule. This stuff is relatively easy to set up with *NIX if you know what you're doing, but if you're a small business then spending £1000 on a couple of Mac Minis and Time Capsules is a lot cheaper than paying a hiring IT person.

Re:Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software

[UnknowingFool]

Probably he means he can't build a server as cheaply as he wanted using consumer grade parts like a Pentium then complaining that Apple is ripping you off using Xeons for Mac Pros and ignoring Apple offers Mac mini servers as a cheaper option.

Re:Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software

[UnknowingFool]

Technically you don't even need Time Capsules. Attaching a 2 TB FW or USB drive to a Mac mini would work. Now if they didn't already have a router, the Time Capsule would make sense.

Re:Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software

[pseudonomous]

I imagine you could probably get someone to give you a pentium-based computer for free, and it may indeed perform sufficiently well to accomplish some basic, low-load server type tasks, but I think most people would prefer to put processors that were designed sometime in the last decade in their servers instead. The mac mini is a great little machine, and it's not even over-priced if you *want* something that small, but it's kind of limited in it's I/O capabilities. You can put two hardrives in the latest revision, as long as you're OK with losing the optical drive, and then you can spend the better part of a day trying to take one out and replace it if it fails. I suppose other people may have different opinions, but if I ran a server for my business, I'd want the hardware maintenance to be dead simple. In fact, I'd want hot-swappable drives, so I don't even have to take the machine down to do the drive replacement. And I'd want at least the *option* to install at least 4 sata/esate drives. The "mini-server" runs $999 currently, for that price, I'm sure you could build or buy yourself a much bigger, but also much more convenient to work on tower, with as powerful a processor, and significantly expanded I/O options, which also probably consumes a bit more power as well as performs slightly better. Then install CentOS and you're good to go.

Re:Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software

[pseudonomous]

In my experience, that rate of hardware failure on Apple hardware is pretty close to the rate of failure on non-Apple PC hardware.

Re:Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software

[Kagetsuki]

For the same reasons someone would pay to have it installed for them? Besides, it's not like it's just PostGreSQL there are other parts of the package. I'm sure there is support or some other service options in there as well but I'm not interested to find out.

And besides, offering OSS as a service is something even RMS supports. It's free as in freedom.

Oracle running on MAC hardware?

[vlm]

The article speculates that the change is because MySQL is now Oracle property

Can't Oracle fix this problem by offering Oracle on mac hardware?

Re:Oracle running on MAC hardware?

[FellowConspirator]

You can run Oracle's products on Mac hardware already. That's not the issue.

The article is speculating that Oracle, who bought MySQL, may sue Apple if they start including MySQL as a packaged and preinstalled part of their OS X server distribution. Silly, you say, because there's still an open-source branch of MySQL free to download and distribute. Apple certainly hasn't stated that they are worried about the possibility, it's just speculation in this article. However stupid it may seem, keep in mind that Oracle is suing Google over using Java technology in Android - OpenJDK being open-source and Oracle explicitly receiving an OK to do so from Sun before Oracle bought them, Google is still suing. Perhaps it's not stupid.

That said, PostgreSQL has a lot going for it and it's probably a much better suited default database for the most part. The only thing that PostgreSQL really has against it is that it doesn't have as much mindshare. There's all sorts of GUI front-ends and toolkits that talk to MySQL but fewer that talk to PostgreSQL.

Re:Oracle running on MAC hardware?

[jedidiah]

If patents are really the issue then it doesn't matter what RDBMS you choose to install by default.

That is kind of the whole problem with patents in general. They don't just relate to a particular product. They interfere with your ability to use or build a type of product in general.

People seem to be misunderstanding the scope of patents here.

Re:Oracle running on MAC hardware?

[wkcole]

The article speculates that the change is because MySQL is now Oracle property

Can't Oracle fix this problem by offering Oracle on mac hardware?

1. What "problem" would that be?

2. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/macos/whatsnew/index.html

It is a bit telling that Oracle hasn't kept current on MacOS. Apple has never made heavy-duty servers suitable for Oracle, and has been falling behind in that space since Oracle 10 was the new hotness. The XServe wasn't a bad little box, but it was a *little* box that was really designed for Apple's existing customer population, not for heavy database users. Whatever else Oracle may be, they are not stupid. They know that they have no real reason to care about MacOS as a platform for any of their products.

Installation of MySQL server on Mac OS X Lion

[psergiu]

http://www.djangoapp.com/blog/2011/07/24/installation-of-mysql-server-on-mac-os-x-lion/

1) Download the latest 64-Bit DMG Archive (Apple Disk Image) from MySQL Site (http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/). Current latest version is 5.5.14 which I’ll be using to install on my machine.
2) Mount the Disk Image (I mean open/double-click the DMG file) and install MySQL server by double-clicking the PKG file (in my case mysql-5.5.14-osx10.6-x86_64.pkg) and follow onscreen instructions. ( It will ask for Master password, as it installs MySQL server in /usr/local )
3) Add /usr/local/mysql/bin to your path by editing .profile file. (Optionally you can create alias to mysql and mysqladmin as mentioned in README File)
4) You can start MySQL server by running “/usr/local/mysql/bin/mysqld_safe &” from terminal but Disk image you downloaded also consists of Startup Package & Preferences Pane which allows you to start/stop MySQL server from System Preferences and even Automatically Start MySQL Server at Startup.

Re:Installation of MySQL server on Mac OS X Lion

[rgviza]

Alternatively you could future proof your environment, be hella more secure, download the source, compile it, develop your own package, automate it, and be completely free from Steve Jobs' tyranny and lack of motivation to release up to date OSS.

OSX is a UNIX with a free vendor provided gcc and you can do that ;-)

Here's a MUCH better way to handle this issue:
http://www.malisphoto.com/tips/mysql-on-os-x.html

Ditto for httpd, php, ssl and any other critical networking packages for exposed services. Relying on vendor packages for them is professional suicide and WILL leave you vulnerable while the vendor's employees fuck off and don't get the job done, leaving your ass hanging out in the breeze to get compromised while you wait whenever a 0day, worm etc is released. (remember the OpenSSL worm? It took months to get patched packages, the OpenSSL folks released the patch the day after it was discovered. I was patched, most people weren't while they waited for packages)

At least MySQL isn't exposed to the world (is it? hope not) so it's a little less critical, but at the same time it is still critical to keep it patched.

In general if you depend on an OSS application or service, and it's exposed (or exposed to systems that are exposed), you should be compiling it so you can patch it when you need to, not much later, when Apple deems it important enough to get around to releasing a package.

Re:Installation of MySQL server on Mac OS X Lion

[rawler]

"apt-get install mysql-server". done.

Not to diss Apple/MacOSX, or the valid uses of it. But rather than trying to stretch it's use to things Apple didn't intend/support, there are often better alternatives.

Re:Installation of MySQL server on Mac OS X Lion

[willy_me]

On another note, What is used for creating Databases for iOS Apps and Cocoa Apps?

I believe SQLight is used extensively in both OSX and iOS. It is accessed via their Core Data framework but can also be accessed directly if required. Generally speaking, if you are utilizing a database from an iOS application then that database will be running on a separate server. So long as you can access the client libraries via C in iOS, any database will work.

Re:Installation of MySQL server on Mac OS X Lion

[Freultwah]

"sudo port install mysql5" or "sudo port install mysql5-devel". Done.

They most likely won't

[dutchwhizzman]

First of all, there are no serious apple servers sold at the moment. Second of all, Oracle is currently stopping support for several of it's competitors hardware platforms. I doubt they will add OSX if they just dumped HP-UX.

Probably a wise choice

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Oracle seems intent to milk other companies for "passive" revenue instead of continuing to innovate. They've added "lawsuit trolling" to their business model. Congratulations--your company has completed its transformation from industry-dominating innovator to a complete-joke.

Re:Probably a wise choice

[Nadir]

Same as Apple, then.

Re:Probably a wise choice

[JSBiff]

Wasn't the transformation into a joke pretty much complete when they payed to plaster their name all over Iron Man 2, even though there was no real apparent reason why Oracle would ever be mentioned in an Iron Man film (unless maybe in one of the lab/tech sequences . . . I could see Tony Stark having an Oracle Database server in his lab)?

Re:Or...

[jellomizer]

I Prefer postgresql over MySQL myself... However having used both MySQL isn't bad, it is just different... MySQL does have some nice commands that makes doing some rather common actions much easier. But Postgresql has a lot more raw power, and customization. I have worked with people who are Die Hard MySQL Fans and you hear complaining when using Postgresql that it doesn't do this or it doesn't do that, and I need to write a stored function to do this...

A big one that is popular is the Replace INTO command in MySQL where it works as both as an Insert or an Update. You can make fare arguments against it, but there are a lot of cases where the REPLACE INTO feature is really nice. And not having to make your own is useful.

Safari

[Ukab the Great]

Elephant puts Lion in its place.

Trendies

[biodata]

They heard about the new trend for no SQL

Jobs & Ellison : Best Friends

[wsxyz]

I don't think this is about Oracle. It's more likely security and licensing as some posters have mentioned above. Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison are big buddies and I doubt Apple is worried about lawsuits from Oracle over Oracle's free software product.

Re:Jobs & Ellison : Best Friends

[willy_me]

Apple is far more then Steve Jobs. He is not even currently involved in the company - he is on medical leave and will not be involved in the vast majority of decisions. Apple is run by others with a little guidance from Jobs. It would be ridiculous for Apple to make assumptions based on the personal relationships of Jobs.

In fact, a while back when the iPad was just released an Apple employee was fired because he let Steve Wozniak look at the unreleased 3g version (the WiFi version was released). Wozniak didn't even know it was the 3g version - the differences are minute. So for letting Wozniak use it for a couple of minutes, under supervision, the employee got sacked. The personal relationship between Wozniak and Jobs did not affect the outcome for that employee.

Buy I agree with your assessment that Apple is not worried about lawsuits from Oracle, but not because of the Jobs/Ellison relationship.

What about Maria DB?

[bahface]

http://mariadb.org/ - I watched a google tech talk on this. Looks quite good. Might be worth a look for those who would like to remain in familiar territory but not have to worry about Oracle.

Re:Tap Tap Tap

[sirdude]

MySQL is dead! Long live MariaDB!

I expect iSQL next month

[Denver_80203]

And it's going to be magical!

re: Why use a Mac as your server?

[King_TJ]

I'm one of the people who might give Lion Server a try.... but here's the thing. I'm *not* talking about using it in a corporate setting. I'm simply one of those enthusiasts/power users/whatever label you prefer who has a LAN at home of 6 or 7 machines, and I've got a small computer-related business of my own that I run, as well as working in I.T. as my day job. I've already got a Mac Pro tower I've been using for years in several server functions. (I have my own ftp site, as well as it acting as my media server.) With an upgrade from Lion to Lion server as inexpensive as it is to buy/download now, it's not a big deal to purchase a copy just to play around with it. I don't run my own mail server at home yet, but it's something I might tinker with, especially with the capability being an integral part of Lion Server already. It'd potentially give me a lot more control over junk mail coming in, for one thing.

I think Apple is focusing the Lion Server product on folks like me, right now, as well as those who already standardized on the Mac for a workgroup or small business. If all of your workstations run OS X in the first place, why not put the same thing on the back end too? Most of these scenarios are places where they don't need rack-mount gear anyway. (EG. A big dentist's office by me where they all use Macs. The server is a tower they stuck in a small coat closet.)

Re:Or...

[TheLink]

"REPLACE INTO" is NOT insert/update. it is insert and delete if there's a duplicate.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/replace.html

If you want insert/update on mysql you use this: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/insert-on-duplicate.html

There is a difference between updating if there's a duplicate and deleting and inserting if there's a duplicate. The differences might cause pain :).

The Postgresql bunch appear to be working on implementing MERGE instead:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SQL_MERGE

Lion Server Completely Neutered

[Windows Breaker G4]

Apple cut off what ever balls OS X server had in lion. Many (my self included) used OS X server in larger environments, lion is now clearly targeted at people with small businesses. Want proof? Look at the tools they shipped with Lion Server, look at the hardware they ship now. If they had fixed the issues with OS X server it would have been a great product but instead it was always pledged with a buggy directory that would keel over if the wind blew the wrong way and OS X not picking up preferences (that got really bad in 10.6). Because of this many are now ditching OS X servers for mac OD integration (where I BOFH is). Makes me kinda sad really, OS X server could have been an amazing product, but apple didn't care so it rotted and is now basically dying.

re: XServe

[King_TJ]

It's only conjecture, mind you, but it's also a definite possibility that when the next revision of the Mac Pro arrives (should be around the September 2011 time-frame), Apple will redesign the case so you can actually flip it on its side and rack-mount it. It's *almost* doable right now, except the case has those arched "handles" on the top and bottom that aren't removable and it's not exactly the right height for a perfect fit. It wouldn't be hard to design it with optional rack rails you could attach to the top and bottom, swapping out removable handles, and making sure it has the appropriate case dimensions to span the width of a rack perfectly.

That would make a lot of sense from their point-of-view. No more need to maintain a product that's a relatively poor/slow seller, while allowing flexibility for Pro users to run the towers as servers in rack installations, where applicable.

The price is actually cheap...

[alispguru]

compared to licensed closed-source software. Price a Microsoft back-office solution some time - the cheaper hardware is quickly swamped by the per-user fees for the software.

Aren't you just annoyed that Apple (of all companies) has found a way to make money off supporting open-source software?

Granted, by bundling it with their hardware...

Re:Or...

[rubycodez]

but you can make a single piece of code that does that (or update on insert) for any DBMS, and never worry about it again. I'm not seeing the issue.

Re:Tap Tap Tap

[rubycodez]

what happens if mariaDB implements something simliar to what Oracle has offers under different license, then Oracle says that thing infringes its IP? I think anything related to or forked from Oracle wares should be shunned and marginalized.

Re: XServe

[UnknowingFool]

That would be a good idea. At 8.1 inches, the Mac Pro is less than 5U. If they could get it to where the handles could be interchangeable with rack mounts and slightly shorten the chassis, it would fit. The only two things that may need addressing is the cooling and a 2nd power supply. The cooling only because I don't know how well a Mac Pro will do in an enclosure. Normal air flow is front to back. The 2nd power supply might be more of a nice feature than absolute necessity.

Re: XServe

[kriston]

Slow down, so a 4U case is better than a 1U case in a rack? I'll take the 1U over that 4U option any day. Scratch that, I'll take a more powerful 1U Dell for 1/5 of the price of that Mac.

This just in...

[dn15]

This just in, MySQL is still free / open source and you can install it if you want.

A more appropriate headline would have been "Postgres becomes default OS X Server database"

Re: XServe

[UnknowingFool]

Where in the world are you getting a Dell 1U server for 1/5 the price of a Mac Pro. The cheapest I could find is $585 on sale with dual core Pentium and 1 GB of memory and 250GB of disk space. The normal price is like $800 for that rack. I don't know about you but I hardly find that more powerful than a Quad core Xeon with 3GB RAM and 1TB HDD unless you want to redefine "more powerful" to mean "less powerful".

Re:Or...

[Quirkz]

Wow! I didn't know either of those existed, and in recent weeks I've needed the functionality of both. I of course managed with longer workarounds, but those will be handy.

That's the problem with being self-taught, sometimes you don't know useful things are out there, and even when you suspect they are out there, sometimes it's difficult to find them.

Re:Or...

[TheLink]

I've seen lots of people try it but do it wrong. They do a select, then insert if the row doesn't exist, update if it does. But if the row doesn't exist and something else tries the same thing at about the same time, both will correctly think the row doesn't exist and both will try to insert.

A constraint on the table it could prevent both inserts from succeeding and only allow one to succeed while raising an error with the other, but I personally prefer that such a DB error is avoided. DB errors can cause transactions to be rolled back, and create more work/problems.

Re:Or...

[TheLink]

As Donald Rumsfeld said:

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.

re: 4U vs. 1U

[King_TJ]

Again, I'm not suggesting that Enterprise uses of PC rack-mount hardware should consider a switch to Mac Pros if they fit in 4U of rack space!

I'm simply saying that realistically, most people considering a Mac as their server are already an all-Mac shop, or at least have an all-Mac department. In these situations, you're not typically worried about packing as many servers as possible into a given amount of rack space. A single Mac Pro server is probably all they'd ever want to rack mount for a departmental server (plus a disk storage cabinet, perhaps, like a Promise V-Trak or something).

The 1U XServes simply weren't selling well, and I think it's largely for my reason above. They were never price-competitive with 1U Linux servers out there, and Windows shops certainly wouldn't bother to take notice of them, since they ship with OS X on them, not Windows Server. They served a niche purpose, which is further whittled away at by facilities that get by just fine rack-mounting groups of Mac Minis with special mounting kits and places that don't want/need to rack mount their server equipment in the first place.

OS X Lion Server does have a few interesting niche capabilities, BTW, that justify using it. For example, it easily functions as a document interchange server for iOS devices (iPad or iPhone running Apple iWork suite, for example), so those users have a network location to load/save documents. It also has a podcast server built in, and can function as the Mac equivalent of Active Directory (even supplementing an existing Microsoft Active Directory server in what Apple calls "Golden Triangle" mode, so it will handle only the Mac-specific directory info that AD doesn't deal with itself).

Use deferred constraints

[MSJos]

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/sql-set-constraints.html

START TRANSACTION;
SET CONSTRAINTS ALL DEFERRED;
INSERT INTO a (id, bid) VALUES(1,2);
INSERT INTO b (id, aid) VALUES(2,1);
COMMIT;

Does MySQL support this? Last time I checked (5.1.something?), it did not.

Re:Or...

[Quirkz]

I've heard that from about 5 different sources, none of them Rumsfeld, though. Wise words, whoever first made them up.

Everything iWant

[jman.org]

Many may anticipate the iSqueal fork, hoping it will conveniently be available via the crApp store...

... and it will be, as soon as Emperor Jobs figures rewrites the laws of math, discovering a new (and certainly non-Euclidean) equation wherein FREE * 30% > $0

Re: XServe

[kriston]

The least expensive Mac Pro is a quad-core 3 GB, 1 TB at $2,499.00 without shipping.

I'm thinking of the quad-core 3GB 1TB Dell R410, which is, okay, a little over 1/3 the price, not 1/5 the price. It's still significant enough for someone concerned with using up space in the rack with an over large, overpriced Mac systems. I don't know why you felt comparing it to a dual-core Pentium is relevant unless you took my hyperbolic statement to fact.

Re: XServe

[UnknowingFool]

My point is your claim that a Dell 1U is 1/5 the price of a Mac Pro yet more powerful is grossly exaggerating where it might be considered a lie. Your 1/3 3GB 1TB Dell R140 is using a slower, cheaper 2.0GHz Xeon E5503, and a 250GB HDD to achieve that price. If you upgrade only the processor, RAM, and HDD to match the MacPro your Dell it is $2389 with a discount from Dell. Is the performance difference between an Intel Xeon W3530 and an Intel Xeon E5503 worth the price difference? That's for you decide but Dell will charge you more presumably because Intel charges more for the performance upgrade. So Apple charging you more isn't some evil plot by Steve Jobs and Co to rob you of your money. Yes, you can get a Dell cheaper than a MacPro but "more powerful" isn't really debatable in this case. It isn't.

Re: XServe

[kriston]

I can scour the Dell catalog and find a much less expensive 1U system with the same performance as that 4U system but I'm not doing that to debate some name-caller on Slashdot. The 4U system is unnecessarily large which is the bulk of my argument.

You need to look up the word "hyperbole" in a dictionary and learn to not call a fellow poster a liar.

Thanks for playing. Your response won't be read.

Re: XServe

[UnknowingFool]

Your resort to "it's hyperbolic" only comes after someone points out that what you said isn't exactly true. Then you keep insinuating that you can get a cheaper and more powerful 1U which was your original point to begin with. Yes you can get cheaper but it's not guaranteed to be more powerful. That's like me saying that no one should every buy discrete graphics cards. Built-in graphics are 10X more powerful and 1/10 the price. That's not necessarily true. I know it. You know it.