I can tell you that identical queries on identical schemata with identical data are provably faster with MySQL than with Oracle
...provided the MySQL server isn't under load. Watch those queries get slower and slower the more users you add. With Oracle, watch the queries perform the same under a far greater load than MySQL will handle.
Re:Because they were the first to support subqueri
on
Why MySQL Grew So Fast
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
MySQL has always been fast.
You forgot to add an important qualifier here - for a certain set of circumstances. MySQL is one of those products that is suitable for database content that isn't changing much - it's very fast reading from the database. The numbers change quite a bit when you're doing heavier work on the database, which is where Oracle & MS-SQL (or even PostGreSQL) come into their own.
nd you can lay very high odds indeed that that functionality is almost entirely due to the first antitrust case
Indeed, this is exactly why the functionality is there.
I think the european decision was interesting - they have to produce a version of Windows with no WMP, so that OEMs can bundle whatever they prefer instead, or if they want, they can get and bundle WMP
It was certainly an interesting decision, but ultimately pretty stupid. Given that OEM's can ship a machine with media player hidden, it doesn't really matter whether MS produce a version without it. If I was MS, I would simply produce a version that costs more than the WMP integrated version. What the EU should have done is to make sure that contracts with OEM's don't restrict what software the OEM can ship - so the OEM could ship Firefox as a default browser, or OpenOffice as a productivity suite. I know that contracts used to restrict that, I'm not sure whether they still do.
I believe the difference is thus: If you are installing MS Windows you must also install IE, and WMP, and all their other knicknacks. You can't remove them either. That means if an OEM wants to ship a PC with MS Windows on it, they have to ship a PC with IE and WMP on it. At best they can include some other programs as well, but IE and WMP are required to be there. Given that MS Windows has 90% desktop share, that means effectively on any new computer, you have to have IE and WMP installed. That's where leveraging a monopoly (which is the bad part) comes in.
But as of Windows XP SP1, while the components might be physically present on the hard disk, you can block access to them. You can do this as part of the installation in a SIF file, or post installation using the "Set Program Access and Defaults" button. This can be used to (for instance) configure a new default Internet browser (I use Firefox), a new default mail client and a new media player. If you use the "hide" option, the applications are simply not available to the user. I use this in corporate environments to prevent access to Outlook Express
but Gosling's personal attacks on RMS are a little over the top
I didn't see any personal attacks there at all. He's fairly critical of the GPL for being a politically loaded license (pretty fairly in my view), but no personal attack. I consider RMS to have a peculiar definition of "free" as well. RMS made a huge mistake choosing that word, as it's so loaded, especially in a monetary sense.
The update released with the original version of this security bulletin is effective in protecting from the vulnerability and users who have applied the update or have installed Office XP Service Pack 3 do not need to take additional action.(emphasis mine)
In addition, Microsoft is making available an additional "client update" for customers on the Microsoft Download Center. This additional update does not contain new fixes or functionality, but is instead an additional offering of the update that provides an alternative for customers. More information on the client update is available in the Security Update Information section.
So they didn't actually release a new update, just a new way of applying the update, and they increased the importance.
Unfortunately, Ansys was trying to use that very memory location. Hence, The program could not load and hours of work time was lost. Learn a little more before you start making foolish comments like this.
So rather than the application using the standard Windows method of allowing the OS to allocate a memory range (i.e. letting the OS do it's job), it was specifying the memory location itself? That is unbelievably broken. This was a problem whether or not you have a service pack installed, just that the service pack showed it for what it was - a retarded application. Trying to blame that on a service pack is the only thing foolish here.
XP Service packs have moved the location that kernel.dll resides in memory which has cost large and very important software packages to not work.
I know this is well after the parent post, but I can't let a statement this stupid stand uncorrected. It moved the location that kernel.dll resided in memory? And what application relies on kernel.dll being in a certain memory location every time? I'd like to see it, because it must be horribly broken every time the machine boots. DLL = Dynamic Link Library - it's not guaranteed the same spot in memory each time.
I would think they wouldn't. If they didn't know there was a patch, they either don't know about MS-SQL, or they're lazy. I'm picking it's the latter. With all the stuff about security these days, there's really no excuse not to know when patches are released - http://www.microsoft.com/security anyone?
M$ was roundly criticised for "hiding" the Slammer patch so well
What do you mean "hiding". There was a security bulletin released, marked as critical - what more do people want?
Re:Windows XP network problems: Underlying sloppin
on
Implementing CIFS
·
· Score: 1
And one of your recommendations is to install NetBEUI. Great suggestion - for yesterdays technology. If you've got issues that are affecting your network stack, NetBEUI is inlikely to be the solution. In fact, it's unlikely to be the solution for many problems.
So you want to use a web browser interface to patch your critical database server? Are you insane?
When I patch my SQL server, I want to do it at a time I want, with a process that I can have a reasonable amount of control over. For me, this means downloading the patch executable and installing it manually, along with thorough testing afterwards.
FWIW, SUS version 2.0 is going to be supporting things other than the operating system stuff.
I remember telling people that sun servers often stayed up for years without reboots -- no one believed it. Computers crashed, that's what computers do. Microsoft, and to a lesser extent apple, convinced most casual users that's the way computers worked.
There's also the fact that while the operating system might have stayed up for years, the application that was running on it crashed - causing an outage. End users don't care whether your Sun machine stays up for years - they care whether the application that runs on it is available. I worked in a VMS environment where the operating system was up for years, but the application would crash once every couple of months. Point of all that - applications and operating systems crash - and users can't necessarily tell the difference.
Re:It's time for a redesign, anyway.
on
XFree86 4.4 Released
·
· Score: 2, Funny
the third mouse wheel
Holy hell man, my mouse only has one wheel - I can't see where they'd put the other two...
The reason is right there in the quote you have - "ASN.1 is really an extremely deep...technology in Windows itself,". So, the choices are a) rush a patch out and maybe fuck over millions of corporate environments, or b) do it properly, but maybe take a little more time about it. MS really can't win with this - if they release a patch that screws peoples machines, they're hammered, but if they release a patch slowly because they don't want to screw peoples machines, they get hammered.
Who's to say this didn't actually take six months to fix? I don't know if you bothered to read the advisory, but it goes very deep into the Windows authentication mechanisms, so this is the sort of thing you have to patch properly. A problem in the patch could cause worse damage to an organisation than a potential exploit.
Great, so you're complaining about a 7 year version of the software written by Microsoft, and some third party apps. Microsoft have tidied up their act in this regard, and have been encouraging others to do so. Just because they haven't isn't really a fault of the operating system manufacturer.
Re:How much was operating revenue?
on
MandrakeSoft Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, I don't know what you consider "donations", but as a Mandrake Club member, I will continue to recompense them 60 dollars per year in support of an excellent, easy to install, OS as opposed to the exorbitant fees charged by MS for their, er, product.
Let's see $60 per year is $180 over three years. I typically change OS'es around every three years. Currently retail for Windows XP is $299 (full edition), although I'm sure you could get it cheaper if you tried. That's only $40 per year more than you pay for Mandrake - hardly exorbitant.
The advice I always got given was called a positive sandwich - you deliver the negative in between two positives. That way you don't look like a negative fucker, but you still get to say what you don't like. It works too, it's really non confrontational.
this product addresses a lot of my 2nd biggest complaint about them: lack of scriptability (i.e., hands-off operation).
so your initial comment about this was based on something you admit you have no idea about? And you got modded 5 interesting? If you don't know about something, why post as though you do?
If it were expensive to upgrade, then people would be giving out different advice
It is expensive to upgrade - just not necessarily in license costs. It's expensive in time and, potentially in the costs of keeping your other packages running. And FWIW, you do see messages saying "that problem is fixed in XP".
At least they support their products for longer than a year. This is part of what Linux distro companies are going to have to deal with if they want to start attacking the desktop market. Upgrading always has a cost, even if you pay nothing for the OS. I'm stil visiting customers who run NT 4.0, Windows 95 (haven't seen Win 3.11 for a while though)
Slashdot Mirror
...provided the MySQL server isn't under load. Watch those queries get slower and slower the more users you add. With Oracle, watch the queries perform the same under a far greater load than MySQL will handle.
You forgot to add an important qualifier here - for a certain set of circumstances. MySQL is one of those products that is suitable for database content that isn't changing much - it's very fast reading from the database. The numbers change quite a bit when you're doing heavier work on the database, which is where Oracle & MS-SQL (or even PostGreSQL) come into their own.
Indeed, this is exactly why the functionality is there.
I think the european decision was interesting - they have to produce a version of Windows with no WMP, so that OEMs can bundle whatever they prefer instead, or if they want, they can get and bundle WMP
It was certainly an interesting decision, but ultimately pretty stupid. Given that OEM's can ship a machine with media player hidden, it doesn't really matter whether MS produce a version without it. If I was MS, I would simply produce a version that costs more than the WMP integrated version.
What the EU should have done is to make sure that contracts with OEM's don't restrict what software the OEM can ship - so the OEM could ship Firefox as a default browser, or OpenOffice as a productivity suite. I know that contracts used to restrict that, I'm not sure whether they still do.
But as of Windows XP SP1, while the components might be physically present on the hard disk, you can block access to them. You can do this as part of the installation in a SIF file, or post installation using the "Set Program Access and Defaults" button. This can be used to (for instance) configure a new default Internet browser (I use Firefox), a new default mail client and a new media player. If you use the "hide" option, the applications are simply not available to the user. I use this in corporate environments to prevent access to Outlook Express
I didn't see any personal attacks there at all. He's fairly critical of the GPL for being a politically loaded license (pretty fairly in my view), but no personal attack. I consider RMS to have a peculiar definition of "free" as well. RMS made a huge mistake choosing that word, as it's so loaded, especially in a monetary sense.
The update released with the original version of this security bulletin is effective in protecting from the vulnerability and users who have applied the update or have installed Office XP Service Pack 3 do not need to take additional action.(emphasis mine)
In addition, Microsoft is making available an additional "client update" for customers on the Microsoft Download Center. This additional update does not contain new fixes or functionality, but is instead an additional offering of the update that provides an alternative for customers. More information on the client update is available in the Security Update Information section.
So they didn't actually release a new update, just a new way of applying the update, and they increased the importance.
So rather than the application using the standard Windows method of allowing the OS to allocate a memory range (i.e. letting the OS do it's job), it was specifying the memory location itself? That is unbelievably broken. This was a problem whether or not you have a service pack installed, just that the service pack showed it for what it was - a retarded application. Trying to blame that on a service pack is the only thing foolish here.
I know this is well after the parent post, but I can't let a statement this stupid stand uncorrected. It moved the location that kernel.dll resided in memory? And what application relies on kernel.dll being in a certain memory location every time? I'd like to see it, because it must be horribly broken every time the machine boots. DLL = Dynamic Link Library - it's not guaranteed the same spot in memory each time.
I would think they wouldn't. If they didn't know there was a patch, they either don't know about MS-SQL, or they're lazy. I'm picking it's the latter. With all the stuff about security these days, there's really no excuse not to know when patches are released - http://www.microsoft.com/security anyone?
What do you mean "hiding". There was a security bulletin released, marked as critical - what more do people want?
underlying sloppiness in Windows OS code
How would you know? Have you seen the code?
When I patch my SQL server, I want to do it at a time I want, with a process that I can have a reasonable amount of control over. For me, this means downloading the patch executable and installing it manually, along with thorough testing afterwards.
FWIW, SUS version 2.0 is going to be supporting things other than the operating system stuff.
There's also the fact that while the operating system might have stayed up for years, the application that was running on it crashed - causing an outage. End users don't care whether your Sun machine stays up for years - they care whether the application that runs on it is available. I worked in a VMS environment where the operating system was up for years, but the application would crash once every couple of months. Point of all that - applications and operating systems crash - and users can't necessarily tell the difference.
Holy hell man, my mouse only has one wheel - I can't see where they'd put the other two...
Or it took that long to test it properly, since it is involved in such a core part of the OS (authentication).
Weren't there bugs in BIND that existed for years as well? I seem to recall something about that a few years ago.
The reason is right there in the quote you have - "ASN.1 is really an extremely deep...technology in Windows itself,".
So, the choices are a) rush a patch out and maybe fuck over millions of corporate environments, or b) do it properly, but maybe take a little more time about it. MS really can't win with this - if they release a patch that screws peoples machines, they're hammered, but if they release a patch slowly because they don't want to screw peoples machines, they get hammered.
Who's to say this didn't actually take six months to fix? I don't know if you bothered to read the advisory, but it goes very deep into the Windows authentication mechanisms, so this is the sort of thing you have to patch properly. A problem in the patch could cause worse damage to an organisation than a potential exploit.
Great, so you're complaining about a 7 year version of the software written by Microsoft, and some third party apps. Microsoft have tidied up their act in this regard, and have been encouraging others to do so. Just because they haven't isn't really a fault of the operating system manufacturer.
Let's see $60 per year is $180 over three years. I typically change OS'es around every three years. Currently retail for Windows XP is $299 (full edition), although I'm sure you could get it cheaper if you tried. That's only $40 per year more than you pay for Mandrake - hardly exorbitant.
The advice I always got given was called a positive sandwich - you deliver the negative in between two positives. That way you don't look like a negative fucker, but you still get to say what you don't like. It works too, it's really non confrontational.
so your initial comment about this was based on something you admit you have no idea about? And you got modded 5 interesting? If you don't know about something, why post as though you do?
Noone stops you creating a "comment" string in the registry that you could read. You can put whatever you like in there.
It is expensive to upgrade - just not necessarily in license costs. It's expensive in time and, potentially in the costs of keeping your other packages running. And FWIW, you do see messages saying "that problem is fixed in XP".
At least they support their products for longer than a year. This is part of what Linux distro companies are going to have to deal with if they want to start attacking the desktop market. Upgrading always has a cost, even if you pay nothing for the OS. I'm stil visiting customers who run NT 4.0, Windows 95 (haven't seen Win 3.11 for a while though)