Oracle will always have more features than any other given database product you care to compare it to, and there will always be those who find some of those Oracle-unique features irresistable. That's what it means to be the central product of a very large, wealthy and reasonably effective software company.
It is not a very meaningful comparison, though. Oracle also has a lot of stuff that nobody would be happy to see tacked on to PostgreSQL. Oracle is notoriously difficult to administer. The download of Oracle's database product is probably 500 times larger than PostgreSQL. (and 20 times larger than Oracle itself was just a few versions ago, which is interesting, and yes I'm guesstimating but still...)
In short, PostgreSQL doesn't need all the features of the Oracle db to be successful, as *nix and NT did not need all the features of a mainframe OS to be successful.
It's just a shame that PHP doesn't include the same level of support for PostgreSQL as they do for MySQL.
It's also a shame that they don't support the modern, multi-threaded version of Apache. At this point PHP pretty much deserves to be overtaken by another product, perhaps using the same language, it's just that nobody has bothered yet.
I don't do database stuff anymore but, looking back, it seems to me that every design I worked on could run on PostgreSQL, now that it has tablespaces. It's a useful design feature but perhaps more importantly, people now have a really good tool to do performance tuning with really large databases. There aren't any other OSS databases with tablespaces as a feature, AFAIK.
I'm not convinced. SQL is supposed to a standard, so you can move from one database server to another with not much effort. This is a big step away from that.
I see what you're trying to say, but you're missing what's potentially good about this. It's all open-source, mysql or maxdb or whatever are free to implement it and the code is already there, unlike PL/SQL or Transact-SQL.
As a practical matter PosgreSQL's feature set is far enough ahead of even max db that it couldn't work the same way and be truly compatible, but hopefully you see what I mean.
they want a box that does the job: they don't need or want to spend their time pissing about with its innards.
Well, I don't either. The problem is that they want to rip me off with the cost of their memory upgrade. I'll pass, thanks.
I'm curious to see how the various Apple reseller avenues handle this. It seems to me one (perhaps the only) good way for third party resellers to actually compete with Apple's web and retail sales while selling these things would be selling upgrades for a reasonable price.
although I wonder why they just don't subtract the cost of the 256MB that it came with originally?
Because they are ripping you off. Do you really need to ask? Do you think there is some elaborate explanation here that spins in Apple's favor?
Crucial.com is a Micron reseller I believe.
Crucial is owned by Micron, and it's not the cheapest place to get modules using Micron RAM, or even the cheapest place to get modules with the "Crucial" brand. Therefore the price differences in your examples are in reality more profound, and Apple is actually ripping people off a lot more than you acknowledge.
For years, liberals and pinkos have rattled on and on about supposedly "superior" computers produced by the California lefties at Apple Computer. I will explain why this company is nothing more than a front for the International Communist Conspiracy, aided and abetted by their liberal fellow-travelers in the American computer community.
Psst! Rush! You LIKE the Mac, remember? It was the only computer you could figure out.
It is as if you have an old car, and, say, Ford says, "We will no longer carry parts for this car or fix it, even when there is an undiscovered flaw, and there is no where else you can go to get it fixed.
Uh... no. It is as if you were getting parts for the car for free, and suddenly you have to pay for them.
The horror!
If they intend to stop supporting something, there should be some way to go to a third party for patches and whatnot.
You don't even need to do that. You just need to pay them.
The horror!
A poster on a different thread suggested that once they end support, MS or whoever should have to open that code up so that a third party or the user him/herself can produce patches.
Or... you could just pay Microsoft for the patches.
I know Linux does. The 2.0 development cycle has seen work from July 1996 to February 2004. Since the source is open and I'm sure there's some 2.0 folks still around, any security fixes, as rare as they come up in the kernel, could easily be backported.
On a system that old, I imagine keeping glibc and whatever userland you're using up to date is a lot harder than the kernel.
Just out of curiosity, what other major software vendors are still providing security (or other) hotfixes for platforms two or three generations back? Do Oracle, SAP etc. and other major commercial vendors do the same?
Oracle certainly does. Keep in mind, however, that Oracle would not be moving customers to some "extended support" option that they have to pay extra for after 10 years or something. The whole support period is "extended support," and they pay for it throughout.:)
In the US at least, they loan nearly anybody money, and then force everyone who pays, to cover the debts of the people who default
See, that's the sort of thing that makes me think losing centralized credit reporting wouldn't hurt banking that bad. They already have so much bad policy anyway, in spite of strong data collection ability...
Overall, this process of trying to holistically determine credit worthiness without a centralized system would be slow as hell and obscenely expensive, if for no other reason than it would be so ineffective that banks would have to charge higher rates to account for their inability to determine credit worthiness. I don't like credit fraud either, but let's not toss the baby with the bathwater here.
But would you really be tossing the baby with the bathwater? Banking functioned very well for eons before centralized credit reporting.
Sure, this guy deserves to be punished, as he will be. But a share of the blame belongs to the people at Ford Motor Credit and Teledata, whose sloppy security enabled this crime. Nothing's been about any penalties for them, and I'm guessing there won't be any.
You never know. If I were going to file a civil claim I'd wait until the criminal case was disposed. Just wait...
Don't get on Apple's case about expensive memory, because it's true in the PC world too! Whether it's Dell, Sony, IBM, whoever - you're almost always better off dollarwise to buy your system with the least available memory, then buy the upgrade from someone else.
Dell and Sony won't void the warranty of a PC if the end-user adds some memory. IBM's out of the PC business. Anyhow, that is the problem with Apple's approach here, not that they're overcharging for it.
He had a cheap solar panel hooked up to a little battery
How much does a setup like that cost? Where can I find out more? Just curious, there's a lot of useless crap when I try to figure it out with google. It'd be great to hear from someone who has been successful with it.
Yeah, but let's be fair. The Eden-N is meant for end-user applications, for the most part. It's built in such a high volume that it should be pretty cheap.
The TS-7200 targets a different market. I don't think anyone is under any sort of illusion that this is going to sell a lot of units; it's a prototype board for developers. If you judge it by the standard of oddball-architecture boards, its price is extremely reasonable.
Doesn't seem very good for development, though, with only 32MB of RAM.
I haven't been following 2.6.x but I can see your point. Lots of changes in general is obviously more dangerous than lots of changes due to bugfixing. I'm skeptical about how great the benefits of a kernel upgrade would be on a small system, so they can take as long as they like, as far as I'm concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
Oracle will always have more features than any other given database product you care to compare it to, and there will always be those who find some of those Oracle-unique features irresistable. That's what it means to be the central product of a very large, wealthy and reasonably effective software company.
It is not a very meaningful comparison, though. Oracle also has a lot of stuff that nobody would be happy to see tacked on to PostgreSQL. Oracle is notoriously difficult to administer. The download of Oracle's database product is probably 500 times larger than PostgreSQL. (and 20 times larger than Oracle itself was just a few versions ago, which is interesting, and yes I'm guesstimating but still...)
In short, PostgreSQL doesn't need all the features of the Oracle db to be successful, as *nix and NT did not need all the features of a mainframe OS to be successful.
It's also a shame that they don't support the modern, multi-threaded version of Apache. At this point PHP pretty much deserves to be overtaken by another product, perhaps using the same language, it's just that nobody has bothered yet.
I don't do database stuff anymore but, looking back, it seems to me that every design I worked on could run on PostgreSQL, now that it has tablespaces. It's a useful design feature but perhaps more importantly, people now have a really good tool to do performance tuning with really large databases. There aren't any other OSS databases with tablespaces as a feature, AFAIK.
I see what you're trying to say, but you're missing what's potentially good about this. It's all open-source, mysql or maxdb or whatever are free to implement it and the code is already there, unlike PL/SQL or Transact-SQL.
As a practical matter PosgreSQL's feature set is far enough ahead of even max db that it couldn't work the same way and be truly compatible, but hopefully you see what I mean.
Again!
s/downloads/legal downloads/
They're just a teeny-tiny little fraction of the music that's traded online.
What does Saturn radiate?
Yeah, Suse's really been screwing people by including working mp3, java, and flash implementations. What a lousy way to treat users!
Haha. Sure.
The relevant part:
So no, I don't believe you.
Well, I don't either. The problem is that they want to rip me off with the cost of their memory upgrade. I'll pass, thanks.
I'm curious to see how the various Apple reseller avenues handle this. It seems to me one (perhaps the only) good way for third party resellers to actually compete with Apple's web and retail sales while selling these things would be selling upgrades for a reasonable price.
Because they are ripping you off. Do you really need to ask? Do you think there is some elaborate explanation here that spins in Apple's favor?
Crucial is owned by Micron, and it's not the cheapest place to get modules using Micron RAM, or even the cheapest place to get modules with the "Crucial" brand. Therefore the price differences in your examples are in reality more profound, and Apple is actually ripping people off a lot more than you acknowledge.
Expand the pathetic base 256MB of RAM without voiding the warranty, for starters.
Psst! Rush! You LIKE the Mac, remember? It was the only computer you could figure out.
You know, if you're going to violate a law whose relation to the first amendment is pretty sketchy, California is a good place to do it.
Uh... no. It is as if you were getting parts for the car for free, and suddenly you have to pay for them.
The horror!
You don't even need to do that. You just need to pay them.
The horror!
Or... you could just pay Microsoft for the patches.
The horror!
On a system that old, I imagine keeping glibc and whatever userland you're using up to date is a lot harder than the kernel.
Oracle certainly does. Keep in mind, however, that Oracle would not be moving customers to some "extended support" option that they have to pay extra for after 10 years or something. The whole support period is "extended support," and they pay for it throughout.
See, that's the sort of thing that makes me think losing centralized credit reporting wouldn't hurt banking that bad. They already have so much bad policy anyway, in spite of strong data collection ability...
But would you really be tossing the baby with the bathwater? Banking functioned very well for eons before centralized credit reporting.
You never know. If I were going to file a civil claim I'd wait until the criminal case was disposed. Just wait...
Dell and Sony won't void the warranty of a PC if the end-user adds some memory. IBM's out of the PC business. Anyhow, that is the problem with Apple's approach here, not that they're overcharging for it.
How much does a setup like that cost? Where can I find out more? Just curious, there's a lot of useless crap when I try to figure it out with google. It'd be great to hear from someone who has been successful with it.
Yeah, but let's be fair. The Eden-N is meant for end-user applications, for the most part. It's built in such a high volume that it should be pretty cheap.
The TS-7200 targets a different market. I don't think anyone is under any sort of illusion that this is going to sell a lot of units; it's a prototype board for developers. If you judge it by the standard of oddball-architecture boards, its price is extremely reasonable.
Doesn't seem very good for development, though, with only 32MB of RAM.
I haven't been following 2.6.x but I can see your point. Lots of changes in general is obviously more dangerous than lots of changes due to bugfixing. I'm skeptical about how great the benefits of a kernel upgrade would be on a small system, so they can take as long as they like, as far as I'm concerned.