Postgres is slower because it is more robust. The transaction locking and the way Postgres commits transactions ensures data integrity in the event of a hardware catastrophe in the middle of a transaction. I don't think MySQL can claim anything like this. Because of this, PostgreSQL is more qualified to serve as a mission-crit DB server than MySQL ever will.
The PostgreSQL developers point out you can disable some of these features to speed things up quite a bit, but you take the chance of losing data if the system crashes.
I'm sure that some of you will now chime in and proclaim "Hackers" to be one of the greatest movies of all time. You are entitled to your opinions, but you are also wrong. God, that movie had many elements this article/question was trying to dispel. Yick!
I certainly don't think "Hackers" was the greatest movie of all time... just an average (teen) film. BUT... I think the people who made Hackers realized they would fail if they tried to portray hacking realistically, so they went for an abstract angle. I really appreciate and respect that.
I don't believe it is possible to respectfully depict computer programming, hacking, or cracking in Hollywood. Obviously they tried to do that in "The Net" and failed to do their homework- which is always bound to happen.
Here's why: A realistic depiction of computing, hacking, etc. is not fit for mainstream public consumption. It will just fly over their heads. And if you try to educate the audience, you're just going to bore them to death.
It's easy for the Unix advocate to wonder why the hell open source projects are porting to NT. I've often asked myself this question and I've come up with one answer: To get them to quit using NT.
Sendmail is a perfect example. Once an IS manager uses sendmail and discovers just how versatile and superior it is over Microsoft's product, they'll be ecstatic- especially since the cost of ownership is probably a ridiculous difference.
But after a while, the IS guy is going to notice that inherent problems with NT itself are really bothering him. Since he doesn't have Microsoft products keeping him bound to NT, he can then move to a much-more-stable platform like Linux and stick with what he knows: Sendmail.
The great thing about this is that the Microsoft fans probably think open source projects porting to NT is some kind of validation of NT as a viable computing platform. Heh heh.
Hello Mr. Katz! This is not the first time Wired Digital has changed ownership.
A subscriber to Wired (dead-wood-edition) since `93, I felt screwed when the first Calvin Klien and Guess Jeans ads began gracing the inside covers. Sheesh.
Both the PC Week and Mindcraft test prove NT can outperform Linux at static webpage delivery. But this is not interesting to me. Most website development I'm involved with involves dynamic webpage delivery.
Without a doubt, Linux (or any Unix-like system) would squish NT into the dirt if they tested dynamic content generation... especially if they did it with CGI. By design, NT is process-heavy and has considerable more overhead to deal with when forking processes (i.e. CGI scripts).
While I agree the Linux and Apache coders have some work to do to get static delivery up to and past the performance of NT, I'd like to see some numbers for dynamic content delivery (the reason I use Linux and not much else).
Putting a computer in your car demands a change in the way you think about computing. Especially since most applications are going to be very specific (i.e. GPS or MP3 audio). Connecting a 101 key keyboard and/or a VGA monitor is overkill.
A simple serial or parallel-port based input device is sufficient. Many people are opting for small LCD displays for visual output.
UMAX and other manufactures have dropped prices on their SCSI models right down to the level of the Parallel Port scanners. Plus, USB scanners are available too - often for the same price as parallel port scanners.
IMO, stay away from the parallel port scanners. You can pick up a UMAX Astra 610S for around $100 and Linux drivers are available for it already.
The company I work for (Sorenson Vision Inc.) is releasing a kick-ass video conferencing system for the MS-Windows platform in April. You can read about it at this site.
It may be the nicest video conferencing system available when it comes out. Unfortunately, the company has no current plans for ports to any other platform because they don't see the economic feasibility of doing so.
If you've used the Sorenson plugin for QuickTime you know the technology is superior to most video compression codecs available so it would be very cool if they would support the Linux movement in some fashion.
The company I work for (Sorenson Vision Inc.) is releasing a kick-ass video conferencing system for the MS-Windows platform in April. You can read about it at .
It may be the nicest video conferencing system available when it comes out. Unfortunately, the company has no current plans for ports to any other platform because they don't see the economic feasibility of doing so.
If you've used the Sorenson plugin for QuickTime you know the technology is superior to most video compression codecs available so it would be very cool if they would support the Linux movement in some fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
"Anonymous Coward" is a fairly accurate description of this poster.
Postgres is slower because it is more robust. The transaction locking and the way Postgres commits transactions ensures data integrity in the event of a hardware catastrophe in the middle of a transaction. I don't think MySQL can claim anything like this. Because of this, PostgreSQL is more qualified to serve as a mission-crit DB server than MySQL ever will.
The PostgreSQL developers point out you can disable some of these features to speed things up quite a bit, but you take the chance of losing data if the system crashes.
I'm sure that some of you will now chime in and proclaim "Hackers" to be one of the greatest movies of all time. You are entitled to your opinions, but you are also wrong. God, that movie had many elements this article/question was trying to dispel. Yick!
I certainly don't think "Hackers" was the greatest movie of all time... just an average (teen) film. BUT... I think the people who made Hackers realized they would fail if they tried to portray hacking realistically, so they went for an abstract angle. I really appreciate and respect that.
I don't believe it is possible to respectfully depict computer programming, hacking, or cracking in Hollywood. Obviously they tried to do that in "The Net" and failed to do their homework- which is always bound to happen.
Here's why: A realistic depiction of computing, hacking, etc. is not fit for mainstream public consumption. It will just fly over their heads. And if you try to educate the audience, you're just going to bore them to death.
It's easy for the Unix advocate to wonder why the hell open source projects are porting to NT. I've often asked myself this question and I've come up with one answer: To get them to quit using NT.
Sendmail is a perfect example. Once an IS manager uses sendmail and discovers just how versatile and superior it is over Microsoft's product, they'll be ecstatic- especially since the cost of ownership is probably a ridiculous difference.
But after a while, the IS guy is going to notice that inherent problems with NT itself are really bothering him. Since he doesn't have Microsoft products keeping him bound to NT, he can then move to a much-more-stable platform like Linux and stick with what he knows: Sendmail.
The great thing about this is that the Microsoft fans probably think open source projects porting to NT is some kind of validation of NT as a viable computing platform. Heh heh.
*ROTFLMAO*
Now I get a 404 from the mirror.
*rolls eyes* *rolls eyes*
Hello Mr. Katz! This is not the first time Wired Digital has changed ownership.
A subscriber to Wired (dead-wood-edition) since `93, I felt screwed when the first Calvin Klien and Guess Jeans ads began gracing the inside covers. Sheesh.
Both the PC Week and Mindcraft test prove NT can outperform Linux at static webpage delivery. But this is not interesting to me. Most website development I'm involved with involves dynamic webpage delivery.
Without a doubt, Linux (or any Unix-like system) would squish NT into the dirt if they tested dynamic content generation... especially if they did it with CGI. By design, NT is process-heavy and has considerable more overhead to deal with when forking processes (i.e. CGI scripts).
While I agree the Linux and Apache coders have some work to do to get static delivery up to and past the performance of NT, I'd like to see some numbers for dynamic content delivery (the reason I use Linux and not much else).
Tom's Hardware Guide loves the K6-3!
Go to Tom's Hardware Guide
Putting a computer in your car demands a change in the way you think about computing. Especially since most applications are going to be very specific (i.e. GPS or MP3 audio). Connecting a 101 key keyboard and/or a VGA monitor is overkill.
A simple serial or parallel-port based input device is sufficient. Many people are opting for small LCD displays for visual output.
UMAX and other manufactures have dropped prices on their SCSI models right down to the level of the Parallel Port scanners. Plus, USB scanners are available too - often for the same price as parallel port scanners.
IMO, stay away from the parallel port scanners. You can pick up a UMAX Astra 610S for around $100 and Linux drivers are available for it already.
The company I work for (Sorenson Vision Inc.) is releasing a kick-ass video conferencing system for the MS-Windows platform in April. You can read about it at this site.
It may be the nicest video conferencing system available when it comes out. Unfortunately, the company has no current plans for ports to any other platform because they don't see the economic feasibility of doing so.
If you've used the Sorenson plugin for QuickTime you know the technology is superior to most video compression codecs available so it would be very cool if they would support the Linux movement in some fashion.
The company I work for (Sorenson Vision Inc.) is releasing a kick-ass video conferencing system for the MS-Windows platform in April. You can read about it at .
It may be the nicest video conferencing system available when it comes out. Unfortunately, the company has no current plans for ports to any other platform because they don't see the economic feasibility of doing so.
If you've used the Sorenson plugin for QuickTime you know the technology is superior to most video compression codecs available so it would be very cool if they would support the Linux movement in some fashion.