Indeed. Actually, the idea of keeping it secret doesn't bug me. That works well enough for Google. But the key word is "secret". You don't go blaring to the press on an underground beta.
Lots of wild promises, requires an invite, they can't develop a web page worth a crud, and their "extentions" page screams "FireFox". Me thinks that this isn't as ground breaking as their PR department will have you believe. We'll see, though.
Depends on what you're doing. I've seen a lot of production environments work fine with PostgreSQL. It can't hold a candle to Oracle on really big and powerful databases, but for a lot of the small-to-medium-business applications being deployed today it's more than enough.
Some features are either quasi-supported by third parties or are now just entering the product via beta.
Actually, the 8.0 series has been out for awhile, and gained many of the professional features you're probably thinking of.
Postgres is on par with Oracle from about 10 years ago.
It is REALLY hard to be current with Oracle. That's why only Oracle can do it at the moment. PostgreSQL is probably next in line.:-)
Alternatively, have a database-independent wrapper and sell any of the popular Open Source databases according to customer needs.
That's basically what JDBC already is. I'm reasonably certain that Sun's "integration" of PostgreSQL merely means "bundling". There's nothing stopping users from loading up a new DB and its JDBC driver in place of the bundled database.:-)
Odd, you're the first I've heard to complain about it. Interesting.
One thing that's always been nice about Pervasive, though, is that tech managers usually have a warm-fuzzy feeling about it, since many of them used Novell back in the day. It's often quite easy to get to get approval for it, especially when the tech manager was otherwise trying to cram something else down your throat.:-)
Uh, yeah. I think he was referring to the configuration steps after that to get the server running. I personally find PostgreSQL easier (just edit the security configuration files and initialize a database, whereas MySQL makes you jump through hoops inside the master database), but from a zero to executing perspective MySQL is up faster than PostgreSQL.
It's not vertical integration if the consumer does the integrating.
The customer does NOT do the integrating here. The iTunes Music Store is integrated with iTunes Library. iTunes Library and AAC format are integrated with the iPod device. It is a complete vertical stack that fully integrates each component into another. e.g. The music downloaded from iTunes cannot play in any other portable player but the iPod. Nor can any other desktop player play the AAC files other than iTunes/Quicktime. (Though there are hacks to get around that problem.) The iPod player is specifically designed to work with iTunes and is not supported by Apple in any other application. (Again, there are hacks, but that doesn't affect the natural integration.)
Face it, it's a vertical stack. Much in the same way that GM has vertical integration between factories, car lots, and repair centers. If their cars only ran on GM Approved Fuel(TM) which was only sold at GM owned/branded retailers, then they'd have vertical integration there too.
Since when can't you modify the source of a product with a BSD-based license?
If you could be so kind, could you clarify what you are referring to? I believe I said that "the GPL license allows Sun less freedom to modify the database in comparison to the BSD license used by PostgreSQL." I'm not certain where your vehemence is targetted.
What the hell? Since when did Pervasive give up on its B-Trieve engine? (aka Pervasive 2000) They had a damn good database going there, and an excellent track record as THE choice for converted mainframe databases. What does PostgreSQL bring to the table that they don't already have?
Re:Java Enterprise System isn't all in Java...
on
Sun Eyes PostgreSQL
·
· Score: 1
Sun's Java Enterprise System is about programming in Java rather than the tools in Java. The technology of the product isn't hugely important its the fact that the API and development is in Java.
Agreed. The only point I'm making is that having a Java infrastructure assists Sun in marketing the JES technology stack. If the entire thing is Java, and obtains a reputation for performance, reliability, and security, then it only makes Sun's Java strategy look better. With "native" components, critics are able to find openings to attack even a successful Java stack on the grounds that "it isn't really Java". (Which has always been a stupid argument, but a popular one nonetheless.)
it's clear why they wouldn't go with MySQL (technical shortcomings aside).
Actually, I'd say that the technical shortcomings have a LOT to do with it. PostgreSQL can be placed head to head with Oracle and still pretty darn appealing. MySQL really don't have that capacity (yet), and is hampered by its non-ANSI comaptible design and SQL variant. So I'm not certain that the decision was made entirely on licensing alone. After all, Sun does support the GNOME project as well, and that is solidly under the GPL.
This really isn't a surprise. MySQL has both licensing problems, and feature problems in the competitive high-end markets. PostGreSQL has none of these issues, and can hold its own in a comparison with Oracle or SQL Server. These features led RedHat to PostgreSQL for their RedHat Database product, and I see little reason why they wouldn't attract Sun as well.
The only thing that slightly bothers me about their strategy is that Sun has been pushing their Java Systems hard. If they actually wanted to bolster that strategy, they'd have three major options for a Java Enterprise Database:
1. Cloudscape/Derby - This product makes the most sense from a technology and licensing perspective, but the fact that it was an IBM product (even though Cloudscape was originally a separate entity before being acquired) taints the software in such a way as to make Sun look bad if they used it.
2. Daffodil - This database is an excellent choice, but it would require the acquisition of another company, a move that the Sun shareholders might question. It would also bring quite a bit of flak in Sun's direction as Daffodil is an Indian company.
3. McKoi SQL - An excellent choice for a Java database, but lacks brand recognition. The feature levels and scalability of the database are still considerable questions. The GPL license also allows Sun less freedom to modify the database in comparison to the BSD license used by PostgreSQL.
As for the choice of Sunbird, I think it's simply a matter of "why not?" It's not like there's any particular leader in the market, and Sunbird plays nice with Firebird/Mozilla.
Owning both a music player business and a music distribution business is actually horizontal integration.
No, horizontal integration would be if Apple owned the technology or songs behind music stores, then rebranded those same stores many times. Or alternatively, if Apple offered a wide number of music-related disparate products. e.g. GM and Ford horizontally integrate their product lines across a variety of brands that appeal to different markets. A looser horizontal integration would be Proctor and Gamble, a company that has a very diverse number of brands that are marketed as completmentary or competitive, but never as a direct requirement for one product to another.
A music store vs. a player have a supply chain relationship. The player needs to be supplied music, which the store can provide. The download music and player music need to be managed, which the iTunes library provides. Since Apple owns nearly the entire integrated supply chain, it's vertical integration.
However, Apple does have a horizontal integration across their hardware and software business. There's a wide variety of computing machines to chose from, as well as two OSes. (OS X Desktop and OS X Server) They also provide a wide variety of software designed for the OS X platform, including Safari, GarageBand, Keynote, iTunes, etc.
Vertically Integrated? What the fuck does that mean?
It means you need to pay more attention to corporate terminology. Veritical Integration refers to the practice of aligning business units (or in this case software units) in such a way as to allow them to interoperate freely and easily. Sometimes that's a bad situation with Windows vertically integrated with Internet Explorer and MS Office.
In this case, however, it's a good thing. The iTunes software integrates from the iPod and CD/Ripping level to a well designed library that's been integrated with a Music Store, CD Burner, Hi-Fidelity music player, and Movie Player. (The latter is currently limited to music videos and trailers.) What this means is that you can use one easy to use application to handle all your music needs. The alternative is to download separate software packages to load the MP3 player, rip CDs, play music, play videos, burn CDs, and purchase online music. Such was the market before the arrival of iTunes.
Of course I still believe in the ripping CDs myself method.
That's what's so great about iTunes, though. Put the CD in the drive and drag it to the Library folder. Instant rip and addition to your library as MP3s.:-)
How stringent are the doctors in testing if you have an ulcer or not before handing out the drugs?
They're usually not too bad on testing for the ulcer itself. Unfortuately, they are quite happy to hand out powerful drugs for anything that appears to be gastritis.
The upshot is that the drugs they will give you (primarily antibiotics) are for short term use, and aren't that different from what they tend to give people "just in case". Though I have to wonder if some of the stomach damage isn't caused by reckless use of antibiotics. The human stomach is inteded to have a variety of bacteria to aid in digestion. Using antibiotics tends to nail ALL bacteria, including the stuff you want to keep.
Yogurt with live cultures is a good way of replacing Acidophilus, but if you've recently had antibiotics, you might want to think about a bottle of bacterial supplements. These can be had in pill form, but you *must* keep it cold and pay attention to the expiration date.
Just letting it "fall off" isn't that simple, because even at subsonic speeds, the force of the wind can provide torque to drive it into your craft.
True. But it's orders of magnatude more simple than the staged Saturn V. Creating a clean separation can still be difficult, but not necessarily something that can't be solved with some creative engineering, a good interlock, and a forceful ejection system.
I'm obviously oversimplifying when I say the booster will, "fall off". My point is that the interlock doesn't have to do that much work. The booster will hold itself together through natural forward and torquing forces. Once that pressure is relieved, there's not as much need for explosive bolts on these craft. Unlocking and using a proper ejection system (small rockets perhaps?) can make the procedure easier and safer. Obviously the pilot needs to be aware of his flight profile before ejecting the stage (e.g. Banking or diving is probably not a good time to hit that button), but it is highly doable.:-)
Ozone was the fuel I was thinking of. LHO3 would seriously improve rocket performance. Unfortunately, the ozone's metastability makes it a serious PITA to deal with. Might be useful for these racers, though.:-)
Ah, good catch. Yes, I meant NIF. Nothing like a terawatt laser to "brighten" your day! (Feel free to groan.);-)
Is what you're attaching to still thrusting?
That's a choice in the rocket design. Quite probably: No. These craft are designed with high-speed glide capability, so it's far easier to drop the booster when it stops thrusting.
Are you moving at supersonic or transsonic speeds, so that you have to worry about strong shocks?
An emphatic NO. Currently the contest requires that the craft stay at sub-sonic velocities. This is probably due in part to FAA regulations about super-sonic velocities over land masses.
Do you need to detach from multiple things at once?
If the purpose is to Keep It Simple Stupid, you probably want a booster that's easily detatchable, but locks itself in place during the boost phase. This is easy to achieve with a proper interlock. As long as the force is transferring to the craft through the interlock, the booster will cling to the craft. After firing is complete, the booster module can easily be designed to unlock and fall away.
Tripropellants are completely different
Yes, I understand. But I still thought that some of the exotic metastable fuels had been worked out. i.e. Were in a usable state. Yet they create so many problems that they're very difficult to use in "regular" launch boosters. It's just simpler to stick with LHOx. Just keep topping it off till launch time, and you're ready to go.;-)
If you have anything that classifies as a sports car,
I don't, but I see plenty of middle classers with Camaros and Grand Prixes.
a $500 cell phone
Motorola Razr. 'Nuff said.
especially a non-experimental human-carrying aircraft of any sort
Granted, most home-built planes from kits qualify as "experimental" to the FAA, but that doesn't stop the Zeniths from being just as nice and just as affordable as that 1970's Cessna 152. Most of the people who fly either craft are firmly in the middle class.
Seriously, I just passed a major brain fart on that one. 200 watts is pretty much the maximum sustainable power for a human being. I've heard burst power ratings as high as 500 watts though, particularly from athletes like Lance Armstrong.
/me goes and swears in a corner for using the wrong figure
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps they spent all of their time on developing a good browser instead of a good website.
One would hope. But my fear is that in that case they wouldn't have spent the time to do all those hideous CSS effects.
Indeed. Actually, the idea of keeping it secret doesn't bug me. That works well enough for Google. But the key word is "secret". You don't go blaring to the press on an underground beta.
Lots of wild promises, requires an invite, they can't develop a web page worth a crud, and their "extentions" page screams "FireFox". Me thinks that this isn't as ground breaking as their PR department will have you believe. We'll see, though.
Not if you're a production DBA.
:-)
Depends on what you're doing. I've seen a lot of production environments work fine with PostgreSQL. It can't hold a candle to Oracle on really big and powerful databases, but for a lot of the small-to-medium-business applications being deployed today it's more than enough.
Some features are either quasi-supported by third parties or are now just entering the product via beta.
Actually, the 8.0 series has been out for awhile, and gained many of the professional features you're probably thinking of.
Postgres is on par with Oracle from about 10 years ago.
It is REALLY hard to be current with Oracle. That's why only Oracle can do it at the moment. PostgreSQL is probably next in line.
Apology accepted. No worries. :-)
Alternatively, have a database-independent wrapper and sell any of the popular Open Source databases according to customer needs.
:-)
That's basically what JDBC already is. I'm reasonably certain that Sun's "integration" of PostgreSQL merely means "bundling". There's nothing stopping users from loading up a new DB and its JDBC driver in place of the bundled database.
Odd, you're the first I've heard to complain about it. Interesting.
:-)
One thing that's always been nice about Pervasive, though, is that tech managers usually have a warm-fuzzy feeling about it, since many of them used Novell back in the day. It's often quite easy to get to get approval for it, especially when the tech manager was otherwise trying to cram something else down your throat.
the latter is less typing.
Uh, yeah. I think he was referring to the configuration steps after that to get the server running. I personally find PostgreSQL easier (just edit the security configuration files and initialize a database, whereas MySQL makes you jump through hoops inside the master database), but from a zero to executing perspective MySQL is up faster than PostgreSQL.
It's not vertical integration if the consumer does the integrating.
The customer does NOT do the integrating here. The iTunes Music Store is integrated with iTunes Library. iTunes Library and AAC format are integrated with the iPod device. It is a complete vertical stack that fully integrates each component into another. e.g. The music downloaded from iTunes cannot play in any other portable player but the iPod. Nor can any other desktop player play the AAC files other than iTunes/Quicktime. (Though there are hacks to get around that problem.) The iPod player is specifically designed to work with iTunes and is not supported by Apple in any other application. (Again, there are hacks, but that doesn't affect the natural integration.)
Face it, it's a vertical stack. Much in the same way that GM has vertical integration between factories, car lots, and repair centers. If their cars only ran on GM Approved Fuel(TM) which was only sold at GM owned/branded retailers, then they'd have vertical integration there too.
Since when can't you modify the source of a product with a BSD-based license?
If you could be so kind, could you clarify what you are referring to? I believe I said that "the GPL license allows Sun less freedom to modify the database in comparison to the BSD license used by PostgreSQL." I'm not certain where your vehemence is targetted.
What the hell? Since when did Pervasive give up on its B-Trieve engine? (aka Pervasive 2000) They had a damn good database going there, and an excellent track record as THE choice for converted mainframe databases. What does PostgreSQL bring to the table that they don't already have?
Sun's Java Enterprise System is about programming in Java rather than the tools in Java. The technology of the product isn't hugely important its the fact that the API and development is in Java.
Agreed. The only point I'm making is that having a Java infrastructure assists Sun in marketing the JES technology stack. If the entire thing is Java, and obtains a reputation for performance, reliability, and security, then it only makes Sun's Java strategy look better. With "native" components, critics are able to find openings to attack even a successful Java stack on the grounds that "it isn't really Java". (Which has always been a stupid argument, but a popular one nonetheless.)
it's clear why they wouldn't go with MySQL (technical shortcomings aside).
Actually, I'd say that the technical shortcomings have a LOT to do with it. PostgreSQL can be placed head to head with Oracle and still pretty darn appealing. MySQL really don't have that capacity (yet), and is hampered by its non-ANSI comaptible design and SQL variant. So I'm not certain that the decision was made entirely on licensing alone. After all, Sun does support the GNOME project as well, and that is solidly under the GPL.
This really isn't a surprise. MySQL has both licensing problems, and feature problems in the competitive high-end markets. PostGreSQL has none of these issues, and can hold its own in a comparison with Oracle or SQL Server. These features led RedHat to PostgreSQL for their RedHat Database product, and I see little reason why they wouldn't attract Sun as well.
The only thing that slightly bothers me about their strategy is that Sun has been pushing their Java Systems hard. If they actually wanted to bolster that strategy, they'd have three major options for a Java Enterprise Database:
1. Cloudscape/Derby - This product makes the most sense from a technology and licensing perspective, but the fact that it was an IBM product (even though Cloudscape was originally a separate entity before being acquired) taints the software in such a way as to make Sun look bad if they used it.
2. Daffodil - This database is an excellent choice, but it would require the acquisition of another company, a move that the Sun shareholders might question. It would also bring quite a bit of flak in Sun's direction as Daffodil is an Indian company.
3. McKoi SQL - An excellent choice for a Java database, but lacks brand recognition. The feature levels and scalability of the database are still considerable questions. The GPL license also allows Sun less freedom to modify the database in comparison to the BSD license used by PostgreSQL.
As for the choice of Sunbird, I think it's simply a matter of "why not?" It's not like there's any particular leader in the market, and Sunbird plays nice with Firebird/Mozilla.
Owning both a music player business and a music distribution business is actually horizontal integration.
No, horizontal integration would be if Apple owned the technology or songs behind music stores, then rebranded those same stores many times. Or alternatively, if Apple offered a wide number of music-related disparate products. e.g. GM and Ford horizontally integrate their product lines across a variety of brands that appeal to different markets. A looser horizontal integration would be Proctor and Gamble, a company that has a very diverse number of brands that are marketed as completmentary or competitive, but never as a direct requirement for one product to another.
A music store vs. a player have a supply chain relationship. The player needs to be supplied music, which the store can provide. The download music and player music need to be managed, which the iTunes library provides. Since Apple owns nearly the entire integrated supply chain, it's vertical integration.
However, Apple does have a horizontal integration across their hardware and software business. There's a wide variety of computing machines to chose from, as well as two OSes. (OS X Desktop and OS X Server) They also provide a wide variety of software designed for the OS X platform, including Safari, GarageBand, Keynote, iTunes, etc.
Vertically Integrated? What the fuck does that mean?
It means you need to pay more attention to corporate terminology. Veritical Integration refers to the practice of aligning business units (or in this case software units) in such a way as to allow them to interoperate freely and easily. Sometimes that's a bad situation with Windows vertically integrated with Internet Explorer and MS Office.
In this case, however, it's a good thing. The iTunes software integrates from the iPod and CD/Ripping level to a well designed library that's been integrated with a Music Store, CD Burner, Hi-Fidelity music player, and Movie Player. (The latter is currently limited to music videos and trailers.) What this means is that you can use one easy to use application to handle all your music needs. The alternative is to download separate software packages to load the MP3 player, rip CDs, play music, play videos, burn CDs, and purchase online music. Such was the market before the arrival of iTunes.
Of course I still believe in the ripping CDs myself method.
:-)
That's what's so great about iTunes, though. Put the CD in the drive and drag it to the Library folder. Instant rip and addition to your library as MP3s.
Stuck with the most popular, the most vertically integrated, the best populated, and the most featureful music store. Poor us.
I'm surprised he didn't end up dead
Come on, how many people do you know who died from ulcers?
Common medical theory at the time was that the bacteria couldn't survive a gastral war in the stomach. Turned out that it was just very slow to grow.
How stringent are the doctors in testing if you have an ulcer or not before handing out the drugs?
They're usually not too bad on testing for the ulcer itself. Unfortuately, they are quite happy to hand out powerful drugs for anything that appears to be gastritis.
The upshot is that the drugs they will give you (primarily antibiotics) are for short term use, and aren't that different from what they tend to give people "just in case". Though I have to wonder if some of the stomach damage isn't caused by reckless use of antibiotics. The human stomach is inteded to have a variety of bacteria to aid in digestion. Using antibiotics tends to nail ALL bacteria, including the stuff you want to keep.
Yogurt with live cultures is a good way of replacing Acidophilus, but if you've recently had antibiotics, you might want to think about a bottle of bacterial supplements. These can be had in pill form, but you *must* keep it cold and pay attention to the expiration date.
Just letting it "fall off" isn't that simple, because even at subsonic speeds, the force of the wind can provide torque to drive it into your craft.
:-)
True. But it's orders of magnatude more simple than the staged Saturn V. Creating a clean separation can still be difficult, but not necessarily something that can't be solved with some creative engineering, a good interlock, and a forceful ejection system.
I'm obviously oversimplifying when I say the booster will, "fall off". My point is that the interlock doesn't have to do that much work. The booster will hold itself together through natural forward and torquing forces. Once that pressure is relieved, there's not as much need for explosive bolts on these craft. Unlocking and using a proper ejection system (small rockets perhaps?) can make the procedure easier and safer. Obviously the pilot needs to be aware of his flight profile before ejecting the stage (e.g. Banking or diving is probably not a good time to hit that button), but it is highly doable.
Ozone was the fuel I was thinking of. LHO3 would seriously improve rocket performance. Unfortunately, the ozone's metastability makes it a serious PITA to deal with. Might be useful for these racers, though. :-)
I think you're thinking of NIF, not ITER.
;-)
;-)
Ah, good catch. Yes, I meant NIF. Nothing like a terawatt laser to "brighten" your day! (Feel free to groan.)
Is what you're attaching to still thrusting?
That's a choice in the rocket design. Quite probably: No. These craft are designed with high-speed glide capability, so it's far easier to drop the booster when it stops thrusting.
Are you moving at supersonic or transsonic speeds, so that you have to worry about strong shocks?
An emphatic NO. Currently the contest requires that the craft stay at sub-sonic velocities. This is probably due in part to FAA regulations about super-sonic velocities over land masses.
Do you need to detach from multiple things at once?
If the purpose is to Keep It Simple Stupid, you probably want a booster that's easily detatchable, but locks itself in place during the boost phase. This is easy to achieve with a proper interlock. As long as the force is transferring to the craft through the interlock, the booster will cling to the craft. After firing is complete, the booster module can easily be designed to unlock and fall away.
Tripropellants are completely different
Yes, I understand. But I still thought that some of the exotic metastable fuels had been worked out. i.e. Were in a usable state. Yet they create so many problems that they're very difficult to use in "regular" launch boosters. It's just simpler to stick with LHOx. Just keep topping it off till launch time, and you're ready to go.
If you have anything that classifies as a sports car,
I don't, but I see plenty of middle classers with Camaros and Grand Prixes.
a $500 cell phone
Motorola Razr. 'Nuff said.
especially a non-experimental human-carrying aircraft of any sort
Granted, most home-built planes from kits qualify as "experimental" to the FAA, but that doesn't stop the Zeniths from being just as nice and just as affordable as that 1970's Cessna 152. Most of the people who fly either craft are firmly in the middle class.
Hey, I'm only off by a power of 1000. ;-)
/me goes and swears in a corner for using the wrong figure
Seriously, I just passed a major brain fart on that one. 200 watts is pretty much the maximum sustainable power for a human being. I've heard burst power ratings as high as 500 watts though, particularly from athletes like Lance Armstrong.