We all seem to forget that SQL was supposed to be the data abstraction layer. Somehow it's now this ugly stuff that no one is supposed to touch, and every project that is built attempts to reconstruct a data abstraction layer.
Not to mention that OO abstraction on top of a relational model causes significant complications. How does one perform true joins? By building additional classes that represent the "join" of two other classes? What about complex reporting queries?
Of all the apps that are claimed as "maintainable" because of OO abstraction, I've never seen one that actually accomplishes this in a truly clean way. Because it's hardly ever possible if you're making true use of a relational database.
I was at this talk today. The biggest mistake the open-source community can make is to under-estimate Microsoft and to dismiss these comments as pure hogwash. It's actually *scary* to me that the Slashdot editors considered *not* posting this. Please realize that today is the day Microsoft decided to publicly declare war on open-source. This is not just big. This is *huge*, and it's time to sound the alarm: Microsoft will attack open-source with every resource at its disposal.
Open-Source is a threat to Microsoft's business model and, as a business, Microsoft is making the decision to attack its biggest threat. This will include exaggerations, leaps in reasonings, and a lot of FUD. The important concept to take away from today's meeting is that Microsoft is *very* smart. They understand open-source. They understand the weaknesses of the open-source community. And they are attacking them with full force.
Gathering thoughts from a few open-source hackers at this meeting today, it seems Microsoft is leading a 3-pronged attack:
Making the GPL out to be very evil (whether we believe this is true or not is irrelevant). Characterizing open-source solely through this "evil" GPL license and instilling fear about how the GPL destroys intellectual property if you so much as use GPL software.
Pointing out that there is a difference between open standards and open-source. We know this, but we haven't made our case strongly enough. Now Microsoft gets to have the first word in this public debate, and they are blaming the open-source community for muddling the issue. Nevermind the truth, this attack is extremely intelligent.
Partially adopting all the easy, non-threatening aspects of open-source. Peer review? yeah, they do that with Microsoft source code licensing to universities. Community? sure, they have 5,000,000 members of MSDN! Giving back to the community? Of course, closed-source companies pay $26B in taxes every year, which funds government programs, which funds university development, which funds software research.
What Microsoft is doing is simple: they are taking away the easy open-source arguments, and muddling the complex ones. Whether you think their message rings true or not is irrelevant: they are making a solid marketing case. The Open-Source community had better be ready to respond.
You're looking to build a db-backed web site. For that, your RDBMS should have the following features:
transactions
foreign-key constraints so you can maintain simple data integrity rules in your dataset
stored procedures and triggers so you can maintain complex data integrity rules and perform data-intensive operations efficiently
row-level locking so you can minimize contention when your # of users grows
optimistic locking, so that when you are writing data to a particular row, readers of that data aren't blocked (they get the slightly old version of the data until the new version is ready to rock).
Those are the technical requirements of building a very scalable DB-backed web application. The only two RDBMS systems that truly support these features, to the best of my knowledge, are Oracle and PostgreSQL.
At this point in time, Oracle is more scalable on *VERY* large systems, because it can be tuned more precisely when you have 22 mirrored disks and a 16-processor box. Also, Oracle is usually very stable (although the latest versions which come with a bloated VM and all sorts of additional crud have become significantly less stable than Oracle DBAs were used to).
For most people, though, PostgreSQL is a fantastic technical solution. It provides all the features in an easy-to-manage package with an extremely advanced architecture. Within a few months, it will support replication much more easily than Oracle does, and will continue to lead the way in SQL92 compliance.
Also, PostgreSQL and Oracle both have serious support options. In fact, PostgreSQL is supported by multiple companies, so you actually have a choice. If you're worried about the quality of support you'll receive from these new organizations, then you've clearly never dealt with Oracle's pathetic excuse for support.
There is a catch, though. Your job may be at stake if you use PostgreSQL. No one ever got fired for choosing Oracle. PostgreSQL will probably work better than Oracle at significantly less cost of administration with significantly better support. However, because it isn't nearly as well accepted in the IT community, you are taking a personal risk by choosing PostgreSQL. If Oracle fails, it's Oracle's fault. If PostgreSQL fails, it's going to be your fault for choosing a "non-standard" software product.
From a technical/usability standpoint, PostgreSQL is the way to go. If you consider the politics of your organization, though, and your organization isn't comfortable on the cutting edge, you may still have to go Oracle for a while.
You can also use the ACS for Postgres (http://acspg.benadida.com until we get a better URL...), which is the Postgres port of ArsDigita's Community System. It includes a task manager (for todos and such), a ticket tracker, and a team manager where you can manage teams of users and projects so that one system can run dozens of different projects' bugs. Lots of reporting already done, plus it's on top of a real RDBMS (Postgres), so additional reporting is very easy to write. No hooks into CVS, but then again I'm not quite sure how you could do that completely automatically (e.g. figure out which bug was fixed when you check things in seems pretty daunting). If you're trying to track bugs/feature requests for publicly-released software, ACS/pg's Software Development Manager is also pretty good. All of this is described in details on the web site.
You are indeed doing a great job with Slashdot, but it definitely seems like it's time change the database. You shouldn't use a product just because it's Open Source.. if it doesn't work, dump it. We all criticize Microsoft and other companies for writing buggy software that breaks. We should be just as demanding of the Open Source projects.
Hmmm, finding a general solution to breaking ANY 128-bit algorithm is (and it's reasonably safe to say this) quite close to impossible given any known technology today.
2^128 is a very very very big number. There is no way any government can break every 128-bit algorithm. Maybe some specific ones because of specific weaknesses, but not all of them.
That's not exactly what I was saying, but I didn't express myself correctly.
I'm saying that free software didn't come into the spotlight until it made business sense to a number of organizations, i.e. RedHat saw they could make money by supporting Linux, IBM saw that Apache worked well and would attract customers to other IBM products by supporting it, etc...
In general, free software works because there are definitely other avenues for making money: support, customized software, etc... This is very specific to software, and cannot be generalized to every other field.
What exactly does that mean? Money is simply a way to perform exchanges of property through a common, accepted intermediary. A dollar is no more evil than a pound of hay used as a unit of property. Money is no more evil than the concept of property itself.
If what you are preaching here is some variant of John Lennon's "Imagine," then maybe I'll just step out of the discussion, because this is getting a little bit too off-topic for me. There are some realities that we all must deal with, and imagining a world with no possessions, no right to own, etc.. is quite a bit off today's world. Free Software works today because it's starting to make business sense, not because it's the "right thing to do."
It's amazing to me how these ideas of freeing music are so wonderfully visionary on one hand, and so amazingly near-sighted on the other.
The idea that all music should be free because it is only 1's and 0's is interesting. But why does everyone think that the remaining "tangible things" like t-shirts, concerts, etc... are going to remain tangible?
I foresee a day when t-shirts can "download" a pattern off the net, and reconfigure their dye to the appropriate band's logo. Nothing tangible there, just 1's and 0's. So should this be free, too?
I also foresee a day when some simple virtual reality and haptic interfaces will allow anyone to "feel" like they're at a concert. All they will be getting is a bunch of 1's and 0's from the net. Nothing tangible there, either. So I suppose concerts will also soon be free.
In the end, if you consider that 1's and 0's should always be free, you are cutting off every possible source of income for musicians (and any other field that is later attacked by this free-everything frenzy).
Free music today may sound great. But if you follow that path, as amazingly hippy and altruistic as it may sound, you may very well cause an end to music altogether...
Although that initial GET A LIFE comment is more of a flame than a real comment, I have to say that I agree.
If Apple doesn't charge for this, then why would they go and spend millions in research on this cool stuff in the future? For the good of humanity? Please.
Now some people are saying "wait until Firewire becomes widespread, then charge." I'm sorry, I thought that was the exact evil thing we were blaming Microsoft for? You want them to have a patent over a basic, everyday technology, and then screw everyone by raising the price? Or would you rather they be honest about what they plan to do and change the price before everyone has standardized on the technology?
Apple spent money on this. They did the world a favor by inventing a damn cool technology. And they deserve to be paid for it. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
We all seem to forget that SQL was supposed to be the data abstraction layer. Somehow it's now this ugly stuff that no one is supposed to touch, and every project that is built attempts to reconstruct a data abstraction layer.
Not to mention that OO abstraction on top of a relational model causes significant complications. How does one perform true joins? By building additional classes that represent the "join" of two other classes? What about complex reporting queries?
Of all the apps that are claimed as "maintainable" because of OO abstraction, I've never seen one that actually accomplishes this in a truly clean way. Because it's hardly ever possible if you're making true use of a relational database.
Open-Source is a threat to Microsoft's business model and, as a business, Microsoft is making the decision to attack its biggest threat. This will include exaggerations, leaps in reasonings, and a lot of FUD. The important concept to take away from today's meeting is that Microsoft is *very* smart. They understand open-source. They understand the weaknesses of the open-source community. And they are attacking them with full force.
Gathering thoughts from a few open-source hackers at this meeting today, it seems Microsoft is leading a 3-pronged attack:
What Microsoft is doing is simple: they are taking away the easy open-source arguments, and muddling the complex ones. Whether you think their message rings true or not is irrelevant: they are making a solid marketing case. The Open-Source community had better be ready to respond.
Those are the technical requirements of building a very scalable DB-backed web application. The only two RDBMS systems that truly support these features, to the best of my knowledge, are Oracle and PostgreSQL.
At this point in time, Oracle is more scalable on *VERY* large systems, because it can be tuned more precisely when you have 22 mirrored disks and a 16-processor box. Also, Oracle is usually very stable (although the latest versions which come with a bloated VM and all sorts of additional crud have become significantly less stable than Oracle DBAs were used to).
For most people, though, PostgreSQL is a fantastic technical solution. It provides all the features in an easy-to-manage package with an extremely advanced architecture. Within a few months, it will support replication much more easily than Oracle does, and will continue to lead the way in SQL92 compliance.
Also, PostgreSQL and Oracle both have serious support options. In fact, PostgreSQL is supported by multiple companies, so you actually have a choice. If you're worried about the quality of support you'll receive from these new organizations, then you've clearly never dealt with Oracle's pathetic excuse for support.
There is a catch, though. Your job may be at stake if you use PostgreSQL. No one ever got fired for choosing Oracle. PostgreSQL will probably work better than Oracle at significantly less cost of administration with significantly better support. However, because it isn't nearly as well accepted in the IT community, you are taking a personal risk by choosing PostgreSQL. If Oracle fails, it's Oracle's fault. If PostgreSQL fails, it's going to be your fault for choosing a "non-standard" software product.
From a technical/usability standpoint, PostgreSQL is the way to go. If you consider the politics of your organization, though, and your organization isn't comfortable on the cutting edge, you may still have to go Oracle for a while.
You can also use the ACS for Postgres (http://acspg.benadida.com until we get a better URL...), which is the Postgres port of ArsDigita's Community System. It includes a task manager (for todos and such), a ticket tracker, and a team manager where you can manage teams of users and projects so that one system can run dozens of different projects' bugs. Lots of reporting already done, plus it's on top of a real RDBMS (Postgres), so additional reporting is very easy to write. No hooks into CVS, but then again I'm not quite sure how you could do that completely automatically (e.g. figure out which bug was fixed when you check things in seems pretty daunting). If you're trying to track bugs/feature requests for publicly-released software, ACS/pg's Software Development Manager is also pretty good. All of this is described in details on the web site.
Rob,
You are indeed doing a great job with Slashdot, but it definitely seems like it's time change the database. You shouldn't use a product just because it's Open Source.. if it doesn't work, dump it. We all criticize Microsoft and other companies for writing buggy software that breaks. We should be just as demanding of the Open Source projects.
Good luck with everything...
Hmmm, finding a general solution to breaking ANY 128-bit algorithm is (and it's reasonably safe to say this) quite close to impossible given any known technology today.
2^128 is a very very very big number. There is no way any government can break every 128-bit algorithm. Maybe some specific ones because of specific weaknesses, but not all of them.
That's not exactly what I was saying, but I didn't express myself correctly.
I'm saying that free software didn't come into the spotlight until it made business sense to a number of organizations, i.e. RedHat saw they could make money by supporting Linux, IBM saw that Apache worked well and would attract customers to other IBM products by supporting it, etc...
In general, free software works because there are definitely other avenues for making money: support, customized software, etc... This is very specific to software, and cannot be generalized to every other field.
The end of money?
What exactly does that mean? Money is simply a way to perform exchanges of property through a common, accepted intermediary. A dollar is no more evil than a pound of hay used as a unit of property. Money is no more evil than the concept of property itself.
If what you are preaching here is some variant of John Lennon's "Imagine," then maybe I'll just step out of the discussion, because this is getting a little bit too off-topic for me. There are some realities that we all must deal with, and imagining a world with no possessions, no right to own, etc.. is quite a bit off today's world. Free Software works today because it's starting to make business sense, not because it's the "right thing to do."
It's amazing to me how these ideas of freeing music are so wonderfully visionary on one hand, and so amazingly near-sighted on the other.
The idea that all music should be free because it is only 1's and 0's is interesting. But why does everyone think that the remaining "tangible things" like t-shirts, concerts, etc... are going to remain tangible?
I foresee a day when t-shirts can "download" a pattern off the net, and reconfigure their dye to the appropriate band's logo. Nothing tangible there, just 1's and 0's. So should this be free, too?
I also foresee a day when some simple virtual reality and haptic interfaces will allow anyone to "feel" like they're at a concert. All they will be getting is a bunch of 1's and 0's from the net. Nothing tangible there, either. So I suppose concerts will also soon be free.
In the end, if you consider that 1's and 0's should always be free, you are cutting off every possible source of income for musicians (and any other field that is later attacked by this free-everything frenzy).
Free music today may sound great. But if you follow that path, as amazingly hippy and altruistic as it may sound, you may very well cause an end to music altogether...
Although that initial GET A LIFE comment is more of a flame than a real comment, I have to say that I agree.
If Apple doesn't charge for this, then why would they go and spend millions in research on this cool stuff in the future? For the good of humanity? Please.
Now some people are saying "wait until Firewire becomes widespread, then charge." I'm sorry, I thought that was the exact evil thing we were blaming Microsoft for? You want them to have a patent over a basic, everyday technology, and then screw everyone by raising the price? Or would you rather they be honest about what they plan to do and change the price before everyone has standardized on the technology?
Apple spent money on this. They did the world a favor by inventing a damn cool technology. And they deserve to be paid for it. Period.