PostgreSQL is included in Red Hat Professional Server. PostgreSQL is included in the basic $30 version, and presumably in the $3(?) Cheapbytes version. What is different is the kind of support you have reason to expect at the other end of a phone line. For serious users who want someone interested in their problems at the other end of a phone line, this looks like a pretty sweet deal.
MySQL is not a "better" database. It is a different kind of database. The design goals of MySQL are very different. MySQL is simple, direct, and very fast, but slow readers and updates are a very bad mix. For anything involving slow readers, look at a master-slave setup with the slow readers connecting to the slave, not the master. Benchmarks are pretty well useless since the results depend on the kind of load, not how good the databases are. Personally, I like MySQL, but you do have to code differently for it ("better" (IMNSHO)). Probably if any of the SELECT statements are outside of your control, you want something where slow readers do NOT block updates.
This can get real interesting if the license is way out of line with the marketing. If there is a reasonable claim that one or the other is fraudulent,...hehe...
But with all the noise, a few more people do get curious and find out a bit more. The signal to noise ratio may be pretty bad, but any attention is better than no attention. The GPL has been around for a long time. You have to wonder why it is suddenly "bad". Microsoft is worried that the coporate world will discover that GPL'd (or other Open Source) software is their best (maybe only) defence against being locked into incompetent and/or uncooperative vendors. Remember that FUD didn't originate from IBM but from customer's PHB's with a deathly fear that Big Blue would drop effective support (while technically living up to the support agreement). The irony is that the companies that got the best support had multiple vendors pointing fingers at each other and not with a "single number to call".
Who owns and controls this accounts database?
Are all resources controlled by this accounts database?
I think it comes to something like levels of access (or security classifications). If you have a front-gate, a doorway, and a wall safe, you do not use the same key for all three.
>>The only people who get stuck in this situation are large corporations.
The only people you hear about are the large corporations, and even they don't get much attention. The "little people" won't even get any attention. Nobody gets any help.
>>That's about as non-open as you can get.
Maybe just nit-picking about semantics, but while appreciating your sentiments, I have to strongly disagree. Now I don't get to look at the source, but I'm not going to get anywhere close to the binary either. Whoever has control of the binary has access to the source. That seems to fit the requirements of Open Source, GPL included.
It is simple for the child to have only the rights that the parent had at the time of the fork.
The trick is to have the child lose the rights whenever the parent loses the rights.
Scene 1. Garage door open. Stuff inside. Nobody in sight.
Scene 2. Same but with "Garage Sale" signs stuck in the front lawn.
In scene 1, you don't expect strangers to come wandering into your garage. In scene 2, you do.
>>Connecting to a public network for private purposes is inherently retarded and should never be done.
Like connecting a private driveway to a public road???
Makes sense. Further, a lot of server-side stuff will have embarassingly long lifetimes and need to keep working, unmodified, as the hardware platform is switched to a different vendor.
Only one out of one hundred million users of a particular piece of software would have any interest in making it do what she wanted it to do? Very precisely stated numbers should have some degree of plausibility.
If noone care about the source code, then why does Microsoft want to keep its code to itself? Or is Microsoft "noone"?
So you think he's got a better product? I don't, and I doubt that he does either. What he has is a worse product that is worse where he does not care, and better where he does care.
This is a very small example of what IBM is promoting and Microsoft is fighting. Power to the users!
Constant diameter does not imply round.
I think the best one I've seen is a wagon with square wheels, rolling smoothly on a roadbed of matching round logs. This was in some TV show with eliptical and other strange shaped gears. Fascinating.
Expensive, but consider the cost of a wrong cable, or plugged in backwards, or some such.
Serial cables can be strange beasts, and UPS cables seem to be stranger than most. $600 is a lot for pluggin in a cable, but pretty cheap for keeping a "maintained by HP" status.
The old Tectronix (sp?) 4014 was 4096 x 3072 pixels.
That's 12 megapixels something like 20 years ago.
Of course it was monochrome storage tube technology.
IBM gets an OS that scales from tiny embedded systems to large mainframes. They get an OS that works with IBM hardware and software, and with competitors' hardware and software. They get an OS where it is nearly impossible to get locked into and subject to the whims of a single vendor. If Linux gives IBM any advantage in the interconnections required for effective business-to-business-to-business..., the returns make the billion dollars look like chump change.
I don't know but I suspect that IBM is already making money from Linux, internally as a consumer, big time.
Nah, they wouldn'd do anything like that. IBM was never cheap or petty. It's more like tha old mainframes where the customer wants to try out a few tests before the expensive new mainframe comes in. I'm sure that IBM is very accustomed to being somewhat privy to customer information that stays with the customer.
Slashdot Mirror
PostgreSQL is included in Red Hat Professional Server. PostgreSQL is included in the basic $30 version, and presumably in the $3(?) Cheapbytes version. What is different is the kind of support you have reason to expect at the other end of a phone line. For serious users who want someone interested in their problems at the other end of a phone line, this looks like a pretty sweet deal.
MySQL is not a "better" database. It is a different kind of database. The design goals of MySQL are very different. MySQL is simple, direct, and very fast, but slow readers and updates are a very bad mix. For anything involving slow readers, look at a master-slave setup with the slow readers connecting to the slave, not the master. Benchmarks are pretty well useless since the results depend on the kind of load, not how good the databases are. Personally, I like MySQL, but you do have to code differently for it ("better" (IMNSHO)). Probably if any of the SELECT statements are outside of your control, you want something where slow readers do NOT block updates.
This can get real interesting if the license is way out of line with the marketing. If there is a reasonable claim that one or the other is fraudulent, ...hehe...
>>People like to shop, and companies like to drop down bucks on new hardware and shiny new CD's. Tarballs aren't sexy.
Yeah, you can download everything important for free, but you don't get the pretty box!
Actually, the fact that you can download everything for free makes the box all the more attractive.
But with all the noise, a few more people do get curious and find out a bit more. The signal to noise ratio may be pretty bad, but any attention is better than no attention. The GPL has been around for a long time. You have to wonder why it is suddenly "bad". Microsoft is worried that the coporate world will discover that GPL'd (or other Open Source) software is their best (maybe only) defence against being locked into incompetent and/or uncooperative vendors. Remember that FUD didn't originate from IBM but from customer's PHB's with a deathly fear that Big Blue would drop effective support (while technically living up to the support agreement). The irony is that the companies that got the best support had multiple vendors pointing fingers at each other and not with a "single number to call".
Who owns and controls this accounts database?
Are all resources controlled by this accounts database?
I think it comes to something like levels of access (or security classifications). If you have a front-gate, a doorway, and a wall safe, you do not use the same key for all three.
>>The only people who get stuck in this situation are large corporations.
The only people you hear about are the large corporations, and even they don't get much attention. The "little people" won't even get any attention. Nobody gets any help.
more like 99.44%
>>That's about as non-open as you can get.
Maybe just nit-picking about semantics, but while appreciating your sentiments, I have to strongly disagree. Now I don't get to look at the source, but I'm not going to get anywhere close to the binary either. Whoever has control of the binary has access to the source. That seems to fit the requirements of Open Source, GPL included.
It is simple for the child to have only the rights that the parent had at the time of the fork.
The trick is to have the child lose the rights whenever the parent loses the rights.
Scene 1. Garage door open. Stuff inside. Nobody in sight.
Scene 2. Same but with "Garage Sale" signs stuck in the front lawn.
In scene 1, you don't expect strangers to come wandering into your garage. In scene 2, you do.
>>Connecting to a public network for private purposes is inherently retarded and should never be done.
Like connecting a private driveway to a public road???
of course.
Makes sense. Further, a lot of server-side stuff will have embarassingly long lifetimes and need to keep working, unmodified, as the hardware platform is switched to a different vendor.
That's the power of free software. Libre.
Only one out of one hundred million users of a particular piece of software would have any interest in making it do what she wanted it to do? Very precisely stated numbers should have some degree of plausibility.
If noone care about the source code, then why does Microsoft want to keep its code to itself? Or is Microsoft "noone"?
So you think he's got a better product? I don't, and I doubt that he does either. What he has is a worse product that is worse where he does not care, and better where he does care.
This is a very small example of what IBM is promoting and Microsoft is fighting. Power to the users!
Constant diameter does not imply round.
I think the best one I've seen is a wagon with square wheels, rolling smoothly on a roadbed of matching round logs. This was in some TV show with eliptical and other strange shaped gears. Fascinating.
... until you try to 'do' something with it.
Yep. NT is stable as long as you do not use the GUI.
Expensive, but consider the cost of a wrong cable, or plugged in backwards, or some such.
Serial cables can be strange beasts, and UPS cables seem to be stranger than most. $600 is a lot for pluggin in a cable, but pretty cheap for keeping a "maintained by HP" status.
The old Tectronix (sp?) 4014 was 4096 x 3072 pixels.
That's 12 megapixels something like 20 years ago.
Of course it was monochrome storage tube technology.
the one master key that unlocks everything. /. password for anything else that matters.
Like I'd use my
No such luck. It works like the hydra. Kill one and two more grow in its place.
IBM gets an OS that scales from tiny embedded systems to large mainframes. They get an OS that works with IBM hardware and software, and with competitors' hardware and software. They get an OS where it is nearly impossible to get locked into and subject to the whims of a single vendor. If Linux gives IBM any advantage in the interconnections required for effective business-to-business-to-business ..., the returns make the billion dollars look like chump change.
I don't know but I suspect that IBM is already making money from Linux, internally as a consumer, big time.
If there were not an implicit assumption that the source would be modified, why the term original author and not simply author?
Sorta works with (some) microsoft-only components.
Sorry Billy boy, that's not good enough.
Nah, they wouldn'd do anything like that. IBM was never cheap or petty. It's more like tha old mainframes where the customer wants to try out a few tests before the expensive new mainframe comes in. I'm sure that IBM is very accustomed to being somewhat privy to customer information that stays with the customer.