When I talked to some Solaris guys about MySQL, I had nothing but grief from them about it. They kept hyping up postgresql. Now I wonder if I log into that forum now if they shall change their tunes any.
Sun may be positioning the two products for different applications: PG for production systems and MySQL for Web applications.
Oracle's pricing per core is hurting Sun, as they have processors with many cores and Oracle licenses cost a fortune to Sun's customers ($150000 for a Niagara processor). MySQL prices per server.
Yes, but they've been promoting Postgresql, which is completely free and has better performance than MySQL now. Why aren't they promoting that?
Perhaps, if they control MySQL, it will help them promote PG?
While on it, maybe they can get the "L" replaced too.
What would they replace it with?
Re:Hopefully they fix the joins
on
Sun Buys MySQL
·
· Score: 1
MySQL sucked real bad on joins and didn't properly support subselects.
That has been my experience as well. For our production volume, MySQL doesn't work very well, especially with joins. And, it doesn't seem to matter if I'm using MyISAM or Innodb.
The spec for OOXML is something like 8000 pages. MS controls it, at least defacto. MS wants to prevent interoperability at all costs because it knows that most people don't need office but are forced to use it for company interoperability reasons.
I'd like you both to make short, 15 minute presentation, that would allow people with no technical background to understand Linux installation.
Actually, I work remotely. So, I had a non-technical guy setup two new machines. He had never installed Linux before. He works in the accounting office and didn't even know what the term Operating System meant. I gave him instructions up front as follows: what to name the machine and to use a fixed IP address which I gave him.
He installed Ubuntu without further questions to me and without any problems.
I hate to break it to you, but it really is that easy. It's easier to setup a Ubuntu box than it is to install a printer, for example, under Windows. The vendor's drivers are probably better for Windows, which makes sense, but Ubuntu installs working drivers out of the box.
So, what were they? Nothing more than setting up email (Lotus Notes), connecting network printers, accessing network shares.
As far as setting up Lotus notes, that's an application issue has nothing to do, per se, with Ubuntu. Connecting network printers is easier under Ubuntu. You click on "New Printer", select "Internet Printer (IPP)" and put in the address.
On that topic, our non-technical guy setup our four network printers on these newly installed Ubuntu boxes without my help. He informed me afterwards. Only one printer didn't work correctly because he didn't have the correct address for it. Yep, it is that easy.
But you assume that novices can do all these things under Windows. My mother cannot setup an email program under Windows. She has no idea what a pop server or smtp server is. That has nothing to do with Linux or Windows.
As far as setting up network shares. I fail to see what is so difficult or more difficult under Linux compared to Windows. It is different, true, but certainly not more difficult.
Almost always you will need to figure something out, be it how to fix your resolution or how to get a driver, or whatever.
The only questions you really have to answer, in most cases, is what username and password you want and which language you are using. Other than that it is totally automatic. It recognized all of my hardware and installed it all automatically without a single additional question. In fact, when I plugged in my printer, it popped up a message that it was installed and ready to use. No installation required - just plug it in and turn it on.
Hey, if this school wants to start cranking out graduates totally unprepared for the global job market... why is it MS's job to stop them?
You are a little short sighted in your estimation of the global market. The fact is, that schools determine the software that will be used in the long run by corporations, not the other way around. If the British school system switches to Open Office and that is what graduates are used to, then that is what they will use.
The only reason I've heard that some companies use MS Office is because that's what their people know and they don't want to retrain them. Except for MS evangelists, very few are saying the they need MS Office because its better or they use functionality not found in Open Office.
For some types of users - those who use their laptop for email, wp, internet - having a low power chip and small footprint would be an advantage. Running an OS other than windows for that purpose, especially if it has a small memory footprint and quick boot times would play into that scenario very well.
What he's talking about is the telecom structure, not the data center. What alot of people don't know is that the telecom structure in the US is alot more dependent on single points of failure than you realize. You can wipe out 50% of east-west traffic by inadvertantly digging in the wrong spot with a backhoe and it does happen. And wiping out 50% effectively disables telecom, and therefor, internet traffic period since the rest of the system can't handle the load.
It's not that it couldn't be repaired in 4 hours, but do you want your system and your business down for 4 hours?
Besides, the scenario described in the previous post would be significantly worse as far as downtime is concerned.
If the internet is disabled it doesn't matter if you've got backup somewhere else.
Good points. I understand the pull of virtualizing (sp?) the data center. It reminds me of queue theory in college and why it makes sense to have a single line spawning out to multiple tellers - in the end the tellers are better utilized and, on average, you get better service. But...
Moving all your stuff out of house not only puts all your eggs in one basket it also makes you dependent on the internet. Who knows what the performance of the internet will be in 10 years as people are regularly downloading movies, which, by then, will be HD.
I, personally, wouldn't want to bet my business on it.
I agree. A lot of damage can be done without root access. However, the infection of a program whose executable is not in my user space (and most are installed under/usr,/opt and so on) is not possible without root access.
Linux desktop has been in process because Windows ships by default on 99% of the PC's. In no small part because MS gives bigger discounts when you only sell Windows. Something they couldn't effectively do if they didn't have a monopoly.
They've been sued for this in the US and in Europe.
First, a malicious script would have to find it's way on to your system, something that seems to happen alot more on Windows boxes than on *nix boxes. Secondly, *nix users almost always are logged in as a user, not root, so a malicious script cannot affect system files. Most Windows users use their one and only account with administration privileges.
Where I work, we design security in from the start, something MS has never done. You don't have to spend resources "securing" a parser. If MS can't even write a document parser that is secure, you can imagine how unsafe their operating systems are.
The most successful businesses take a long term view. And taking a long term view means understanding the value of good will.
One thing Intel's underhanded move did was make them look sleazy. You can bet that it will affect their bottom line negatively. I, for one, won't buy an Intel processor. And think of the thousands and potentially millions of people whose first computer will have an AMD processor in it. They are likely to stick with AMD.
Those short-term profit-maximizers will be gone tomorrow with perhaps the CEO and a few others bailing with a golden parachute, but the long term thinkers will still be around.
Most commericial software comes with the same waivers. There is no guarantee for suitability for purpose or functionality. Usually your only recourse is to return the software for a refund of your money and often you don't realistically have that option either.
Re: "You have to use the kernel header files to create a kernel module."
"#include" doesn't bind you to the GPL of the included file. If you create your own header file using part of it, then it does bind you. People write software all the time using Kernel and other GPL'd header files. If that were true, #include would mean the virtually no linux code, anywhere, would be free from the GPL.
Re: "This is assuming that the API itself is not or cannot be covered by the GPL. It is not clear that extracting the API from the code leaves an API that is not itself a derivative work. This may be true, but you can't just assume it."
Again, every program written for linux, proprietary and otherwise, uses, at some level, linux GPL'd libraries. You can use them and you can even distribute them under their rules, but your code becomes bound when you include GPL _source_ code to create your code.
One thing to remember is that McAfee doesn't produce or sell products for Linux, as far as I know, so the issue is whether they used source code to create or derive code for their other products, which appears to be what they are saying or at least implying.
If the inner envelope is anonymous, how can a vote be "spoiled" to allow you to recast your vote? By definition, once that vote arrives and the outer envelope is removed, you no longer can identify the vote with the voter.
It might be possible, that someone was holding a gun to your head and making you vote a certain way, but it would be pretty hard for some special interest to do that on a mass scale.
Re: "In order to get access to the proper low-level interfaces (that you imagine you need for your bean counter), you start writing some kernel support functions."
You can access the Kernel all day long without violating the GPL. You can use Kernel API's and any other API delivered with your linux distribution without breaking the GPL.
You cannot deliver these API's as part of your product without delivering the the source code of the API's. But, your code, it not bound by the GPL. If you use GPL'd _source code_ to create your code, then you are bound by the GPL.
Writing kernel support level functions doesn't bind you to the GPL in any way. Using GPL code, like the GNU c++ compiler doesn't bind you to the GPL. If you incorporate GPL source code or significantly derive your code from it, then, yes, you are bound.
Re: "The problem is simply that in order to write software that interacts with Linux at the low level they need to interact, they need to use code that defines how Linux processes some things internally. There is no choice -- to support Linux, they need to use that code."
Well, that's not quite true. Understanding the Linux process structure or any other aspect of the linux kernel does not, in any way, require you to use GPL'd code. It may require you to look at it and understand it, but you don't have to use GPL'd code to protect it. Maybe there is GPL software available to do just that, but you don't have to use it.
Interacting with a Kernel API does not require you to release your software under the GPL. Using GPL code to do it, does bind you to the GPL.
McAfee has used GPL code so they need to abide by it's rules. It didn't have to - it could have written its own code, but it chose to use GPL code.
They are not saying it's less secure, they are saying that the use of GPL software may have adverse effects on their bottom line. The obvious reason for this is that they may have to make the source code available and that users can do what they want with the code.
In other words, some of the McAfee software is based on GPL code which means they can charge for it (or this distribution), but they have to make the source code available with out limitations other than the GPL.
Re: "Best case scenario: all you lose is lots of time. However much is necessary for converting all the old documents."
It may be worse than that: I've been archiving to DVD's. These are read only which means I would have to convert these documents *EVERY TIME* I need to reference them.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, if they control MySQL, it will help them promote PG? What would they replace it with?
That has been my experience as well. For our production volume, MySQL doesn't work very well, especially with joins. And, it doesn't seem to matter if I'm using MyISAM or Innodb.
The spec for OOXML is something like 8000 pages. MS controls it, at least defacto. MS wants to prevent interoperability at all costs because it knows that most people don't need office but are forced to use it for company interoperability reasons.
Just more vendor lockin from MS.
BTW, Ford, are they still around? They're starting to make that desperate sound of a company about to fold. This kind of stuff reminds of SCO.
Re: "Mustake"
Classic! ROFL.
He installed Ubuntu without further questions to me and without any problems.
I hate to break it to you, but it really is that easy. It's easier to setup a Ubuntu box than it is to install a printer, for example, under Windows. The vendor's drivers are probably better for Windows, which makes sense, but Ubuntu installs working drivers out of the box. As far as setting up Lotus notes, that's an application issue has nothing to do, per se, with Ubuntu. Connecting network printers is easier under Ubuntu. You click on "New Printer", select "Internet Printer (IPP)" and put in the address.
On that topic, our non-technical guy setup our four network printers on these newly installed Ubuntu boxes without my help. He informed me afterwards. Only one printer didn't work correctly because he didn't have the correct address for it. Yep, it is that easy.
But you assume that novices can do all these things under Windows. My mother cannot setup an email program under Windows. She has no idea what a pop server or smtp server is. That has nothing to do with Linux or Windows.
As far as setting up network shares. I fail to see what is so difficult or more difficult under Linux compared to Windows. It is different, true, but certainly not more difficult.
The only questions you really have to answer, in most cases, is what username and password you want and which language you are using. Other than that it is totally automatic. It recognized all of my hardware and installed it all automatically without a single additional question. In fact, when I plugged in my printer, it popped up a message that it was installed and ready to use. No installation required - just plug it in and turn it on.
You are a little short sighted in your estimation of the global market. The fact is, that schools determine the software that will be used in the long run by corporations, not the other way around. If the British school system switches to Open Office and that is what graduates are used to, then that is what they will use.
The only reason I've heard that some companies use MS Office is because that's what their people know and they don't want to retrain them. Except for MS evangelists, very few are saying the they need MS Office because its better or they use functionality not found in Open Office.
My thoughts exactly. Except that it would mean that all those funny people would be coming north. Ouch.
For some types of users - those who use their laptop for email, wp, internet - having a low power chip and small footprint would be an advantage. Running an OS other than windows for that purpose, especially if it has a small memory footprint and quick boot times would play into that scenario very well.
Re: So don't outsource your IT there.
What he's talking about is the telecom structure, not the data center. What alot of people don't know is that the telecom structure in the US is alot more dependent on single points of failure than you realize. You can wipe out 50% of east-west traffic by inadvertantly digging in the wrong spot with a backhoe and it does happen. And wiping out 50% effectively disables telecom, and therefor, internet traffic period since the rest of the system can't handle the load.
It's not that it couldn't be repaired in 4 hours, but do you want your system and your business down for 4 hours?
Besides, the scenario described in the previous post would be significantly worse as far as downtime is concerned.
If the internet is disabled it doesn't matter if you've got backup somewhere else.
Good points. I understand the pull of virtualizing (sp?) the data center. It reminds me of queue theory in college and why it makes sense to have a single line spawning out to multiple tellers - in the end the tellers are better utilized and, on average, you get better service. But ...
Moving all your stuff out of house not only puts all your eggs in one basket it also makes you dependent on the internet. Who knows what the performance of the internet will be in 10 years as people are regularly downloading movies, which, by then, will be HD.
I, personally, wouldn't want to bet my business on it.
I agree. A lot of damage can be done without root access. However, the infection of a program whose executable is not in my user space (and most are installed under /usr, /opt and so on) is not possible without root access.
Linux desktop has been in process because Windows ships by default on 99% of the PC's. In no small part because MS gives bigger discounts when you only sell Windows. Something they couldn't effectively do if they didn't have a monopoly.
They've been sued for this in the US and in Europe.
First, a malicious script would have to find it's way on to your system, something that seems to happen alot more on Windows boxes than on *nix boxes. Secondly, *nix users almost always are logged in as a user, not root, so a malicious script cannot affect system files. Most Windows users use their one and only account with administration privileges.
Where I work, we design security in from the start, something MS has never done. You don't have to spend resources "securing" a parser. If MS can't even write a document parser that is secure, you can imagine how unsafe their operating systems are.
The most successful businesses take a long term view. And taking a long term view means understanding the value of good will.
One thing Intel's underhanded move did was make them look sleazy. You can bet that it will affect their bottom line negatively. I, for one, won't buy an Intel processor. And think of the thousands and potentially millions of people whose first computer will have an AMD processor in it. They are likely to stick with AMD.
Those short-term profit-maximizers will be gone tomorrow with perhaps the CEO and a few others bailing with a golden parachute, but the long term thinkers will still be around.
Most commericial software comes with the same waivers. There is no guarantee for suitability for purpose or functionality. Usually your only recourse is to return the software for a refund of your money and often you don't realistically have that option either.
Re: "You have to use the kernel header files to create a kernel module."
"#include" doesn't bind you to the GPL of the included file. If you create your own header file using part of it, then it does bind you. People write software all the time using Kernel and other GPL'd header files. If that were true, #include would mean the virtually no linux code, anywhere, would be free from the GPL.
Re: "This is assuming that the API itself is not or cannot be covered by the GPL. It is not clear that extracting the API from the code leaves an API that is not itself a derivative work. This may be true, but you can't just assume it."
Again, every program written for linux, proprietary and otherwise, uses, at some level, linux GPL'd libraries. You can use them and you can even distribute them under their rules, but your code becomes bound when you include GPL _source_ code to create your code.
One thing to remember is that McAfee doesn't produce or sell products for Linux, as far as I know, so the issue is whether they used source code to create or derive code for their other products, which appears to be what they are saying or at least implying.
If the inner envelope is anonymous, how can a vote be "spoiled" to allow you to recast your vote? By definition, once that vote arrives and the outer envelope is removed, you no longer can identify the vote with the voter.
It might be possible, that someone was holding a gun to your head and making you vote a certain way, but it would be pretty hard for some special interest to do that on a mass scale.
Re: "In order to get access to the proper low-level interfaces (that you imagine you need for your bean counter), you start writing some kernel support functions."
You can access the Kernel all day long without violating the GPL. You can use Kernel API's and any other API delivered with your linux distribution without breaking the GPL.
You cannot deliver these API's as part of your product without delivering the the source code of the API's. But, your code, it not bound by the GPL. If you use GPL'd _source code_ to create your code, then you are bound by the GPL.
Writing kernel support level functions doesn't bind you to the GPL in any way. Using GPL code, like the GNU c++ compiler doesn't bind you to the GPL. If you incorporate GPL source code or significantly derive your code from it, then, yes, you are bound.
Re: "The problem is simply that in order to write software that interacts with Linux at the low level they need to interact, they need to use code that defines how Linux processes some things internally. There is no choice -- to support Linux, they need to use that code."
Well, that's not quite true. Understanding the Linux process structure or any other aspect of the linux kernel does not, in any way, require you to use GPL'd code. It may require you to look at it and understand it, but you don't have to use GPL'd code to protect it. Maybe there is GPL software available to do just that, but you don't have to use it.
Interacting with a Kernel API does not require you to release your software under the GPL. Using GPL code to do it, does bind you to the GPL.
McAfee has used GPL code so they need to abide by it's rules. It didn't have to - it could have written its own code, but it chose to use GPL code.
They are not saying it's less secure, they are saying that the use of GPL software may have adverse effects on their bottom line. The obvious reason for this is that they may have to make the source code available and that users can do what they want with the code.
In other words, some of the McAfee software is based on GPL code which means they can charge for it (or this distribution), but they have to make the source code available with out limitations other than the GPL.
Re: "Best case scenario: all you lose is lots of time. However much is necessary for converting all the old documents."
It may be worse than that: I've been archiving to DVD's. These are read only which means I would have to convert these documents *EVERY TIME* I need to reference them.