Thread: Comparing databases
Hi, I have followed the discussion about MySQL database, and what we should or should not do (comparisons, critique etc.). I read (very quickly) the Oracle magazine, and here are some points I noticed in there. After that there are shortly some points from IBM DB2 site (did not surf very thoroughly here either). At the end there are some ideas about comparisons etc. Sorry, that this is a bit long. First, Oracle tries to sell a database, but the database is just one part of a larger system. They are telling a story, and there is a hardware manufacturer, a consulting company, an application server company, and perhaps the actual customer. Then they tell that how well these all work together. And if possible, there are pictures of the people. The pictures are important, since that makes you believe, that those people are existing, and that thay really are saying what is there on the paper. I also think that it is important to have the different stakeholders. They are telling, that with these tools, we made this success story, and that makes these tools good, and they work well together. Okay, you say, that because of the standards compliancy, we could make this well too. No, nothing so technical. It is not about JDBC drivers. It is about having the systems work together. It really does not usually matter very much, if you use Dell or Compaq, but having a hardware maker saying, that these two work very well together just sounds good. The features. Self-managing and grid computing, are the two new main features of the new 10g. Maybe there could be a third, but to sell 10 arguments is too much. People only remember a couple of features. And they think that there are some points that are important. It can be, that some day their database is huge, and they want to be sure, that then this system will still serve them well, and they have not lost any valuable work. Do you really need these features? Well, self-managing sounds important. But if it did not exist in Oracle 7, then why did people choose Oracle 7? It can be that it is good, but you can do without it. But is has been chosen as a selling point, and that is why they tell stories about it. Yes, one point that they sell is future. If you now choose our product, it is good also in the future. Foreign keys? Indexes? B-tree? No, too complicated. They can tell you that they have a new improved indexing, and that the new system is much faster than the old one, but thats it. Then there is a story about the new release. Some interviews, pictures of developers, and some new advances in the developement. What we have done differently, and how that has made us even better. I didn't see any database comparisons. I didn't even notice, that they had mentioned DB2 or any other database. (Not even PostgreSQL ;-) I also took a quick look at IBM's site about DB2. IBM had one comparison with Oracle, and that was about TCO. The study was very much focused on license prices. DB2 also talked a lot about self managing stuff. In conclusion, if we want to do product comparisons, we could quite safely compare different PostgreSQL versions. That would be to tackle the issues of the problems with earlier versions. Also it would show the progress. If quality has been a problem, then stories about the process and testing. Studies that show the reliability. IBM and Oracle both have large marketing organizations, and I am sure they have very carefully thought, what their message is. They have made studies about the market, it's needs and put a lot of effort and money in their material. Perhaps we could learn something from them? Not only technology, but also sales and marketing. Okay, they have a price tag on the database, but it does not affect everything. Also, I think that _if_ we compare databases, we should always first compare with the market leader. If people compare PostgreSQL and ms access, or they compare PostgreSQL and Oracle, it has a difference. PostgreSQL could win ms access 10 - 0, but still, that would not make PostgreSQL very highly appreciated database. 5-5 against Oracle, and the situation is a lot different. So, if someone would ask for a comparison between PostgreSQL and MySQL, I think the comparison chart and text should first compare PostgreSQL and Oracle. And after that PostgreSQL and MySQL. But having clearly focus on the Oracle comparison. Because we actually want people to compare PostgreSQL with Oracle, not with MySQL or ms access. Rgs, Jussi
In the spirit of Jussi Mikkola's fine email, I have rewritten Josh's
list of PostgreSQL pro's, followed by quick 1 liner on differences since
7.3, followed by short list of database that the particular pro stacks
up against.
Personally I'd like to see the list become a little more granular
feature wise, and be expanded on a bit. I also can't speak to the
accuracy of my listing of the other databases, if you have recent
experience with them please add or subtract as you see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 7.4 Pros:
-- Extensible Architecture: create your own types, aggregates,
functions, operators, libraries.
73-> now allows ploymorphic functions
vs-> oracle, db2, m$, mysql, firebird
-- 100% Open Source Community Controlled: contributions are not
controlled by any single company, so your suggestions and patches are as
good as anyone's.
73-> two additional companies now sponsoring core members
vs-> oracle, db2, m$, mysql, firebird
-- Many support options: you have a choice of numerous support vendors
rather than being confined to one company.
73-> n/a
vs-> oracle, db2, m$, mysql, firebird
-- BSD-licensed: may be used for commercial applications without fees.
73-> n/a
vs-> oracle, db2, m$, mysql, firebird
-- Fully ACID-compliant: rigorous compliance with SQL Standard
definitions of data integrity, constraints, and keys;
73-> n/a
vs-> mysql
-- ANSI SQL Compliance: Has one of the highest levels of SQL standard
compliance in the industry, including support for Schema, complex Views,
SQL Standard system catalog views.
73-> added support for information schema and sql error codes
vs-> oracle(?), m$, mysql
-- Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC) ensures transaction
integrity, better scalability
73-> n/a
vs-> m$, mysql
-- Industry-leading Reliability: Write Ahead Log system and hot backup
give extraordinary protection against data corruption in the event of
system failures. Only the highest-end proprietary database systems
offer anything comparable.
73-> n/a
vs-> m$, mysql
-- Database Programming: Support for functions and procedures in 11 or
more programming languages. Support for triggers, constraints, and
Rules-based query rewriting.
73-> new pl lang (plr)
vs-> db2, m$, mysql, firebird
-- Responsive Community: Mailing lists offer peer-to-peer assistance
from major PostgreSQL contributors and advanced DBAs, often described as
"better than commercial support."
73-> n/a
vs-> oracle, db2, firebird
-- Scalability: the MVCC system and other parts of our architecture
make PostgreSQL scale very well across hundreds of concurrent read/write
users.
73-> n/a
vs-> m$, mysql, firebird
-- Durability: The PostgreSQL project is 16 years old, with years more
experience than most comparable databases, commercial or OSS. PostgreSQL
has already survived the death of several supporting companies and will
be around for a long time to come.
73-> n/a
vs-> mysql, firebird
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
> -- Durability: The PostgreSQL project is 16 years old, with years more > experience than most comparable databases, commercial or OSS. PostgreSQL > has already survived the death of several supporting companies and will > be around for a long time to come. "A name you can trust" (tm) :) Chris
> > -- Durability: The PostgreSQL project is 16 years old, with years more > > experience than most comparable databases, commercial or OSS. PostgreSQL > > has already survived the death of several supporting companies and will > > be around for a long time to come. Ugh. I know I might be a little more sensitive than most on this point, but it kind of begs the question why did the supportingcompanies fail. Why volunteer that?
>Ugh. I know I might be a little more sensitive than most on this point, but it kind of begs the question why did the supportingcompanies fail. Why volunteer that? > > With due respect, at least two companies (pgSQL, Inc. and Command Prompt, Inc.) have a long standing stability within the open source community. Actually now that I think about it, we are older than pgSQL, Inc. ;). Anyway I think it would be more worth stating that their is long standing, stable companies available to support PostgreSQL versus the fact that PostgreSQL has survived bad VC investment (no offense). Sincerely, Joshua Drake >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 23:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >Ugh. I know I might be a little more sensitive than most on this point,
> > but it kind of begs the question why did the supporting companies fail.
> > Why volunteer that?
>
> With due respect, at least two companies (pgSQL, Inc. and Command
> Prompt, Inc.) have a long standing stability within the open source
> community. Actually now that I think about it, we are older than pgSQL,
> Inc. ;). Anyway I think it would be more worth stating that
> their is long standing, stable companies available to support PostgreSQL
> versus the fact that PostgreSQL has survived bad VC investment (no
> offense).
>
I thought about both of these points, but didn't really come up with better
wording... i think the proper sound bite is that "support companies have come
and gone but postgresql continues on"
still, might be best to avoid that whole end of it if we can... the only
database i think it stacks up against is mysql, maybe firebird, and spadb.
your just not going to convince anyone they should go with postgresql due to
mutliple support options and the oft chance that oracle/ibm/m$ might go
under...
although... what is the db that ibm recently dropped support for?
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
>still, might be best to avoid that whole end of it if we can... the only >database i think it stacks up against is mysql, maybe firebird, and spadb. >your just not going to convince anyone they should go with postgresql due to >mutliple support options and the oft chance that oracle/ibm/m$ might go >under... > > No but you might convince them stating that there is reliable company level support for PostgreSQL. I guess my point is, if you word it correctly it sounds (and is) representative of a solid support infrastructure which is a common misconception about Open Source... that there isn't one. Sincerely, Joshua Drake >although... what is the db that ibm recently dropped support for? > >Robert Treat > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
Robert Treat wrote: > On Tuesday 11 November 2003 23:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>>Ugh. I know I might be a little more sensitive than most on this point, >>>but it kind of begs the question why did the supporting companies fail. >>>Why volunteer that? >> >>With due respect, at least two companies (pgSQL, Inc. and Command >>Prompt, Inc.) have a long standing stability within the open source >>community. Actually now that I think about it, we are older than pgSQL, >>Inc. ;). Anyway I think it would be more worth stating that >>their is long standing, stable companies available to support PostgreSQL >>versus the fact that PostgreSQL has survived bad VC investment (no >>offense). >> > > > I thought about both of these points, but didn't really come up with better > wording... i think the proper sound bite is that "support companies have come > and gone but postgresql continues on" How about, 'There have been instances in past where companies with postgresql as sole core business strategy have failed. but postgresql project continued (relatively) unaffected' Give and take tense and plural/singulars. Talk about weasel wording..:-) Shridhar
> > I thought about both of these points, but didn't really come up with better > > wording... i think the proper sound bite is that "support companies have come > > and gone but postgresql continues on" > > How about, 'There have been instances in past where companies with postgresql as > sole core business strategy have failed. but postgresql project continued > (relatively) unaffected' > > Give and take tense and plural/singulars. Talk about weasel wording..:-) All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates more problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphorfrom this list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I repeat, why volunteer it? Just say there are manyfirms providing support today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z companies.
I would ask Bruce Momjian or Tom Lane about the version 8.0. When is it coming, and what new features they think are in it. Then quote that. That tells the reader indirectly, that there is a new version, a new major release coming somewhere in the future. It also makes you think that the one answering is going to take part in that developement. (Although if they would not take part in it, it is not said that they will do so.) If these people are planning future releases, then it tells you there is a future. They believe in the product, and trust in it. Since they are deeply involved, they know what is happening there, and they propably know best. If they know, and they trust, why would you not trust? Then we could interview some companies, who use PostgreSQL, and let them tell about support they have needed, and what they have received. Although I am not sure, if I would say anything about support. I think it is an issue that people have talked for ages about open source and support. If we keep talking about it, does it mean that it is now solved, or does it mean, that there is an issue? Maybe, if we don't talk about it, people think it is not important? Or they forget, that there was an issue about support. I think it is a bit like when you are buying a car. For normal people, that is a big investment, and people study carefully the features of the car. Usually the salesman is not talking much of repair shops, because that would make the buyer think that there are often problems with this car. However, the buyer knows that if something goes broken, he can take the car and get it fixed. What car is it then that she will choose? The one with the nice colour. Rgs, Jussi Ned Lilly wrote: >>>I thought about both of these points, but didn't really come up with better >>>wording... i think the proper sound bite is that "support companies have come >>>and gone but postgresql continues on" >>> >>> >>How about, 'There have been instances in past where companies with postgresql as >>sole core business strategy have failed. but postgresql project continued >>(relatively) unaffected' >> >>Give and take tense and plural/singulars. Talk about weasel wording..:-) >> >> > >All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates more problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphorfrom this list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I repeat, why volunteer it? Just say there are manyfirms providing support today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z companies. > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > >
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 07:01, Ned Lilly wrote:
> > > I thought about both of these points, but didn't really come up with better
> > > wording... i think the proper sound bite is that "support companies have come
> > > and gone but postgresql continues on"
> >
> > How about, 'There have been instances in past where companies with postgresql as
> > sole core business strategy have failed. but postgresql project continued
> > (relatively) unaffected'
> >
> > Give and take tense and plural/singulars. Talk about weasel wording..:-)
>
> All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates more problems than it solves. To use a favorite
metaphorfrom this list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I repeat, why volunteer it? Just say there are
manyfirms providing support today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z companies.
>
Yeah, I tend to agree. I do think there is a case to be made that the
business decisions of our support companies will never leave you out in
the cold; whether they are licensing changes, level of support changes,
complete abandonment of a product line, or even complete failure of the
business; problems you have seen with other database systems/vendors
that you just wont have with postgresql.
In much of the IT world people talk about when hardware/software become
commoditized, the focus of companies must shift to support, since
everyone is selling /more or less/ the same product. With postgresql we
have already achieved that within our own community, which should mean
companies can receive better support options that are more tailored to
their specific needs.
PostgreSQL :: Because good database support shouldn't require vendor
lock-in
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
I use PGSQL and I love it... I have not needed much support and what I did need I found on google. I'm sure there is a lot I don't know to make it even better...and I fully support the project. I purchase a support contract but would like to see contributions made...just my $0.02 Jon Pastore RHCE, President IDE Tech, Inc. (954) 360-0393 Office (954) 428-0442 Fax Public Key: http://www.idetech.net/keys/jpastore.asc -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Jussi Mikkola Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:23 AM To: PostgreSQL advocacy Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Comparing databases I would ask Bruce Momjian or Tom Lane about the version 8.0. When is it coming, and what new features they think are in it. Then quote that. That tells the reader indirectly, that there is a new version, a new major release coming somewhere in the future. It also makes you think that the one answering is going to take part in that developement. (Although if they would not take part in it, it is not said that they will do so.) If these people are planning future releases, then it tells you there is a future. They believe in the product, and trust in it. Since they are deeply involved, they know what is happening there, and they propably know best. If they know, and they trust, why would you not trust? Then we could interview some companies, who use PostgreSQL, and let them tell about support they have needed, and what they have received. Although I am not sure, if I would say anything about support. I think it is an issue that people have talked for ages about open source and support. If we keep talking about it, does it mean that it is now solved, or does it mean, that there is an issue? Maybe, if we don't talk about it, people think it is not important? Or they forget, that there was an issue about support. I think it is a bit like when you are buying a car. For normal people, that is a big investment, and people study carefully the features of the car. Usually the salesman is not talking much of repair shops, because that would make the buyer think that there are often problems with this car. However, the buyer knows that if something goes broken, he can take the car and get it fixed. What car is it then that she will choose? The one with the nice colour. Rgs, Jussi Ned Lilly wrote: >>>I thought about both of these points, but didn't really come up with >>>better >>>wording... i think the proper sound bite is that "support companies have come >>>and gone but postgresql continues on" >>> >>> >>How about, 'There have been instances in past where companies with >>postgresql as >>sole core business strategy have failed. but postgresql project continued >>(relatively) unaffected' >> >>Give and take tense and plural/singulars. Talk about weasel >>wording..:-) >> >> > >All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates more >problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphor from this list, >PHB's will read that and smell instability. I repeat, why volunteer >it? Just say there are many firms providing support today, and it's >used at X, Y, and Z companies. > >---------------------------(end of >broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
My apologies for the grammar. It's early and everyone is bothering me, (how uncommon in the IT industry) I meant that I had not purchased a support contract as of yet. For my needs it has proven stable and reliable. We are planning to make monetary donations to the project since I do not feel qualified to make code contributions. Jon Pastore RHCE, President IDE Tech, Inc. (954) 360-0393 Office (954) 428-0442 Fax Public Key: http://www.idetech.net/keys/jpastore.asc -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Jon Pastore Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:18 AM To: 'Jussi Mikkola'; 'PostgreSQL advocacy' Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Comparing databases I use PGSQL and I love it... I have not needed much support and what I did need I found on google. I'm sure there is a lot I don't know to make it even better...and I fully support the project. I purchase a support contract but would like to see contributions made...just my $0.02 Jon Pastore RHCE, President IDE Tech, Inc. (954) 360-0393 Office (954) 428-0442 Fax Public Key: http://www.idetech.net/keys/jpastore.asc -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Jussi Mikkola Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:23 AM To: PostgreSQL advocacy Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Comparing databases I would ask Bruce Momjian or Tom Lane about the version 8.0. When is it coming, and what new features they think are in it. Then quote that. That tells the reader indirectly, that there is a new version, a new major release coming somewhere in the future. It also makes you think that the one answering is going to take part in that developement. (Although if they would not take part in it, it is not said that they will do so.) If these people are planning future releases, then it tells you there is a future. They believe in the product, and trust in it. Since they are deeply involved, they know what is happening there, and they propably know best. If they know, and they trust, why would you not trust? Then we could interview some companies, who use PostgreSQL, and let them tell about support they have needed, and what they have received. Although I am not sure, if I would say anything about support. I think it is an issue that people have talked for ages about open source and support. If we keep talking about it, does it mean that it is now solved, or does it mean, that there is an issue? Maybe, if we don't talk about it, people think it is not important? Or they forget, that there was an issue about support. I think it is a bit like when you are buying a car. For normal people, that is a big investment, and people study carefully the features of the car. Usually the salesman is not talking much of repair shops, because that would make the buyer think that there are often problems with this car. However, the buyer knows that if something goes broken, he can take the car and get it fixed. What car is it then that she will choose? The one with the nice colour. Rgs, Jussi Ned Lilly wrote: >>>I thought about both of these points, but didn't really come up with >>>better >>>wording... i think the proper sound bite is that "support companies have come >>>and gone but postgresql continues on" >>> >>> >>How about, 'There have been instances in past where companies with >>postgresql as >>sole core business strategy have failed. but postgresql project continued >>(relatively) unaffected' >> >>Give and take tense and plural/singulars. Talk about weasel >>wording..:-) >> >> > >All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates more >problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphor from this list, >PHB's will read that and smell instability. I repeat, why volunteer >it? Just say there are many firms providing support today, and it's >used at X, Y, and Z companies. > >---------------------------(end of >broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
chriskl@familyhealth.com.au (Christopher Kings-Lynne) writes: >> -- Durability: The PostgreSQL project is 16 years old, with years >> more experience than most comparable databases, commercial or >> OSS. PostgreSQL >> has already survived the death of several supporting companies and will >> be around for a long time to come. > > "A name you can trust" (tm) > > :) No, no... "A name you can trust (if not pronounce)" -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="libertyrms.info" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;; <http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/> Christopher Browne (416) 646 3304 x124 (land)
>All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates more problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphorfrom this list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I repeat, why volunteer it? Just say there are manyfirms providing support today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z companies. > > > That was exactly my point about showing long standing companies versus companies that are no longer around. J >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
Jon, > My apologies for the grammar. It's early and everyone is bothering me, > (how uncommon in the IT industry) I meant that I had not purchased a > support contract as of yet. For my needs it has proven stable and > reliable. We are planning to make monetary donations to the project > since I do not feel qualified to make code contributions. Testimonials are nice, too. Wanna be in our next press release? What does IDE Tech do, anyway? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Jussi, > I would ask Bruce Momjian or Tom Lane about the version 8.0. When is it > coming, and what new features they think are in it. Then quote that. > Then we could interview some companies, who use PostgreSQL, and let them > tell about support they have needed, and what they have received. I really like your ideas. Would you be willing to write "the PostgreSQL Story" sort of "brochure" based on what you've discussed? You can contact Robert Bernier (casestudy@postgresql.org) about company case studies which he already has. I will be happy to edit your English after you are done. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:01:00AM -0500, Ned Lilly wrote:
> All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates more
> problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphor from this
> list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I repeat, why
> volunteer it? Just say there are many firms providing support
> today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z companies.
I second this.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 03:23:04PM +0200, Jussi Mikkola wrote:
> Although I am not sure, if I would say anything about support. I think
> it is an issue that people have talked for ages about open source and
> support. If we keep talking about it, does it mean that it is now
> solved, or does it mean, that there is an issue? Maybe, if we don't talk
> about it, people think it is not important? Or they forget, that there
> was an issue about support.
>
> I think it is a bit like when you are buying a car. For normal people,
> that is a big investment, and people study carefully the features of the
> car. Usually the salesman is not talking much of repair shops, because
> that would make the buyer think that there are often problems with this
> car. However, the buyer knows that if something goes broken, he can take
The problem with this analogy is that people buying databases for
enterprise use are not like people buying cars. They're more like
fleet managers, who _do_ want to know what the long-term maintenance
costs will be.
Most support agreements are actually more like insurance policies
anyway: you have to have them, but they often don't really help you
when things go all wrong. So noting that there are current suppliers
is, I think, the way to go.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:01:00AM -0500, Ned Lilly wrote: > > All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates more > > problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphor from this > > list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I repeat, why > > volunteer it? Just say there are many firms providing support > > today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z companies. > > I second this. Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is supported by several different companies, ensuring that no one company can drive the project in any one direction against the best interests of the community"?
scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:01:00AM -0500, Ned Lilly wrote:
> > > All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates more
> > > problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphor from this
> > > list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I repeat, why
> > > volunteer it? Just say there are many firms providing support
> > > today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z companies.
> >
> > I second this.
>
> Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is supported
> by several different companies, ensuring that no one company can drive the
> project in any one direction against the best interests of the community"?
How about:
Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is supported
by several different companies, preventing vendor lock-in.
..........................
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
After a long battle with technology, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian), an earthling, wrote: > scott.marlowe wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:01:00AM -0500, Ned Lilly wrote: >> > > All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates >> > > more problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphor from >> > > this list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I >> > > repeat, why volunteer it? Just say there are many firms >> > > providing support today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z >> > > companies. >> > >> > I second this. >> >> Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is >> supported by several different companies, ensuring that no one >> company can drive the project in any one direction against the best >> interests of the community"? > > How about: > > Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is > supported by several different companies, preventing vendor > lock-in. .......................... I rather like a wording like... "Support for PostgreSQL development and deployment is provided by a number of different companies, alleviating the risks associated with products controlled exclusively by a single vendor." (Business-types really like the notion of "reducing risks.") -- If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me http://cbbrowne.com/info/rdbms.html I have this nagging fear that everyone is out to make me paranoid.
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Christopher Browne wrote: > After a long battle with technology, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian), an earthling, wrote: > > scott.marlowe wrote: > >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > >> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:01:00AM -0500, Ned Lilly wrote: > >> > > All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates > >> > > more problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphor from > >> > > this list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I > >> > > repeat, why volunteer it? Just say there are many firms > >> > > providing support today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z > >> > > companies. > >> > > >> > I second this. > >> > >> Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is > >> supported by several different companies, ensuring that no one > >> company can drive the project in any one direction against the best > >> interests of the community"? > > > > How about: > > > > Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is > > supported by several different companies, preventing vendor > > lock-in. .......................... > > I rather like a wording like... > > "Support for PostgreSQL development and deployment is provided by a > number of different companies, alleviating the risks associated with > products controlled exclusively by a single vendor." I like this wording ... "preventing vendor lock-in" doesn't have a nice ring to it ...
Folks, Given Chris's interest in this topic and that he already has database comparison stuff on this web page, I'd like to nominate Chris to put together a database comparison worksheet. Chris, I've then entire archives of Advocacy list in mbox format for your perusal, if you like. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > >> Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is > > >> supported by several different companies, ensuring that no one > > >> company can drive the project in any one direction against the best > > >> interests of the community"? > > > > > > How about: > > > > > > Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is > > > supported by several different companies, preventing vendor > > > lock-in. .......................... > > > > I rather like a wording like... > > > > "Support for PostgreSQL development and deployment is provided by a > > number of different companies, alleviating the risks associated with > > products controlled exclusively by a single vendor." > > I like this wording ... "preventing vendor lock-in" doesn't have a nice > ring to it ... Agreed. The newest wording is best. I only suggested my wording because "ensuring that no one company can drive the project in any one direction against the best interests of the community" sounded like "ensuring that the car will not drive off a cliff". -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> > >> Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is >> > >> supported by several different companies, ensuring that no one >> > >> company can drive the project in any one direction against the best >> > >> interests of the community"? >> > > >> > > How about: >> > > >> > > Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is >> > > supported by several different companies, preventing vendor >> > > lock-in. .......................... >> > >> > I rather like a wording like... >> > >> > "Support for PostgreSQL development and deployment is provided by a >> > number of different companies, alleviating the risks associated with >> > products controlled exclusively by a single vendor." >> >> I like this wording ... "preventing vendor lock-in" doesn't have a nice >> ring to it ... > > Agreed. The newest wording is best. I only suggested my wording > because "ensuring that no one company can drive the project in any one > direction against the best interests of the community" sounded like > "ensuring that the car will not drive off a cliff". > Isn't it the cars that too many or nobody is driving, that end up falling off the cliffs? Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
How about: >>> > "Support for PostgreSQL development and deployment is provided by a >>> > number of different companies, alleviating the risks associated >>> with >>> > products controlled exclusively by a single vendor." >> PostgreSQL has qualified and dedicated support via the PostgreSQL community and a number of longstanding commercial companies. The community, which is driven purely by their willingness to create the best database available has developed a series of support channels including (link) mailing lists, (link) websites, and live forums (irc). If commercial support is more suitable you can also visit our (link) commercial support page for a list of PostgreSQL support providers. -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > How about: > > >>> > "Support for PostgreSQL development and deployment is provided by a > >>> > number of different companies, alleviating the risks associated > >>> with > >>> > products controlled exclusively by a single vendor." > >> > > PostgreSQL has qualified and dedicated support via the PostgreSQL > community and > a number of longstanding commercial companies. The community, which is > driven > purely by their willingness to create the best database available has > developed > a series of support channels including (link) mailing lists, (link) > websites, and live > forums (irc). If commercial support is more suitable you can also visit our > (link) commercial support page for a list of PostgreSQL support providers. I'm thinking we need to use the word cooperation or coorperate and diverse somewhere in there. Postgresql has qualified, dedicated, diverse support channels provided through the cooperation of both the user community and a number of longstanding commercial companies... While the community provides support through... (list from above) The commercial companies offer support through telephone callback, email, onsite installation, support and training, and custom postgresql programming. Still kinda rough.
Guys, Hey, you wanna create a wiki page at techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/ ? This would allow you to collaborate better .... -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
>I'm thinking we need to use the word cooperation or coorperate and diverse >somewhere in there. > >Postgresql has qualified, dedicated, diverse support channels >provided through the cooperation of both the user community and a >number of longstanding commercial companies... > >While the community provides support through... (list from above) > >The commercial companies offer support through telephone callback, >email, onsite installation, support and training, and custom postgresql >programming. > > > Watchout PHB's here we come ;). I like the above. >Still kinda rough. > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL.Org - Editor-N-Chief - http://www.postgresql.org
scott.marlowe writes: > I'm thinking we need to use the word cooperation or coorperate and diverse > somewhere in there. > > Postgresql has qualified, dedicated, diverse support channels > provided through the cooperation of both the user community and a > number of longstanding commercial companies... While using attractive words is important, don't lose the focus of what you are trying to say. To me, playing devil's advocate, this sentence raises more questions than it answers: If I want to support, do I have to make use of the user community or can I go straight to the companies? How is "qualified, dedicated" measured? Do the dedicated supporters sit around waiting for my call all day? What does this actually mean? Why are there no short-standing companies? No dynamic potential for newcomers in this area? What is "long" anyway? Etc. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
>While using attractive words is important, don't lose the focus of what >you are trying to say. To me, playing devil's advocate, this sentence >raises more questions than it answers: > >If I want to support, do I have to make use of the user community or can I >go straight to the companies? > > > I think people looking for supoprt would understand this. >How is "qualified, dedicated" measured? Do the dedicated supporters sit >around waiting for my call all day? What does this actually mean? > > This is a good point. Maybe we should just say something like enthusiastic? >Why are there no short-standing companies? No dynamic potential for >newcomers in this area? What is "long" anyway? > > > This is all relative but I don't see any problem with the above. >Etc. > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL.Org - Editor-N-Chief - http://www.postgresql.org
josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) writes: > Given Chris's interest in this topic and that he already has > database comparison stuff on this web page, I'd like to nominate > Chris to put together a database comparison worksheet. > > Chris, I've then entire archives of Advocacy list in mbox format for > your perusal, if you like. Based on the length of the steadily-expanding thread, I'm not convinced that I still have a clear feel, at the moment, for the overall scope of the document that is supposed to emerge from this. I think a mistake is coming out, namely that people are losing focus on the fact that the document needs to be very carefully limited in scope. Jussi Mikkola started this thread with an article with the excellent point that the Big Guys' marketing material carefully LIMITS what it says. They don't talk at all about algorithms, but they also don't name their competitors and try to do in-depth comparisons, and I think that's with good reasons that haven't been mentioned, namely: - The potential for legal liability, and - If you start talking about [Brand Y], that will be taken as a suggestion that the reader consider [Brand Y] as an alternative to your product. My would-be wording of: "Support for PostgreSQL development and deployment is provided by a number of different companies, alleviating the risks associated with products controlled exclusively by a single vendor." has, amongst its merits, that it states merits of PostgreSQL without any need to name the vendors of other databases. There's no need to back up grandiose claims about "qualified, dedicated, diverse support channels." Indeed, I wouldn't want to say any of that at all. The "PHB point" is that the diversity _alleviates risk_. Indeed, if I were to elaborate on this, the direction I would go would involve pointing to the changes to the DB vendor landscape over the last ten years that should cause _risk_ to be a concern. Numerous DBMSes have disappeared due to corporate reorganization, and that's a Substantial Business Risk. - People that adopted Adabas-D on Linux saw it _disappear_. It became SAP-DB, but that has proven risky too, as that is disappearing soon in favor of MaxDB, controlled by yet another vendor. - Those that adopted MySQL on the basis of it being "Free Software" are doubtless realizing that it Isn't So Free, and should be quite concerned about the _fact of the single vendor_. - If I were an Informix VAR, I'd be _really_ concerned after the IBM acquisition. Informix was a Really Big Company; size doesn't forcibly mitgate risk. - I don't quite understand how Sybase is still in business, unless Microsoft is still paying them some royalties on SQL Server... The PostgreSQL is not immune to all risk, but the diversity of community participation is highly significant in cutting that risk. I really don't want to get into evaluating the quality of support vendors when I haven't bought from them, and so can only have a _very_ limited ability to speak to that. Keeping to a tight focus is a vital. -- (format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "ntlug.org") http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/postgresql.html I can see clearly now, the brain is gone...
Josh Berkus wrote: > Guys, > > Hey, you wanna create a wiki page at techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/ ? > > This would allow you to collaborate better .... > Sounds like a good idea to me. -Robby -- Robby Russell, | Sr. Administrator / Lead Programmer Command Prompt, Inc. | http://www.commandprompt.com rrussell@commandprompt.com | Telephone: (503) 222.2783
Christopher Browne writes: > My would-be wording of: > > "Support for PostgreSQL development and deployment is provided by a > number of different companies, alleviating the risks associated with > products controlled exclusively by a single vendor." > > has, amongst its merits, that it states merits of PostgreSQL without > any need to name the vendors of other databases. There's no need to > back up grandiose claims about "qualified, dedicated, diverse support > channels." Indeed, I wouldn't want to say any of that at all. The > "PHB point" is that the diversity _alleviates risk_. I totally agree with that reasoning. But these points about PostgreSQL being open, free, independent, flexible, cool, have already been made, sorted out, written down, etc. I can send you a flyer with a sentence like that on it. It certainly doesn't hurt to keep reevaluating these points, but... I think the idea of this thread was to accumulate technical points on particular databases vs. PostgreSQL. This doesn't have to be, and should not be IMHO, propaganda material, but it should be available as a reference for people to prepare for tough questions. So it should be factual. So, we need people who have some experience using some other database and make a fair evaluation. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Josh Berkus writes: > Hey, you wanna create a wiki page at techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/ ? > > This would allow you to collaborate better .... Can you explain how, other than by moving the discussing away from the mailing list? -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 05:42:15PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> - If I were an Informix VAR, I'd be _really_ concerned after the IBM
> acquisition. Informix was a Really Big Company; size doesn't
> forcibly mitgate risk.
>
> - I don't quite understand how Sybase is still in business, unless
> Microsoft is still paying them some royalties on SQL Server...
These are also two good examples, because at one point or another,
these were both considered products that were the best in their
class, that were more or less unbeatable, and that were therefore sfe
and solid choices.
You could talk about this without naming particular products, if you
wanted. I tend to agree with Chris, however, that more words are
unlikely to be read by the PHB targets. In my experience, a
paragraph with more than three sentences makes so called technology
decisions makers' eyes glaze over.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
>> >> - I don't quite understand how Sybase is still in business, unless >> Microsoft is still paying them some royalties on SQL Server... >> >> > > > Sybase has a long standing and stable foothold in the financial industry. >These are also two good examples, because at one point or another, >these were both considered products that were the best in their >class, that were more or less unbeatable, and that were therefore sfe >and solid choices. > >You could talk about this without naming particular products, if you >wanted. I tend to agree with Chris, however, that more words are >unlikely to be read by the PHB targets. In my experience, a >paragraph with more than three sentences makes so called technology >decisions makers' eyes glaze over. > >A > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL.Org - Editor-N-Chief - http://www.postgresql.org
Josh Berkus wrote: > Guys, > > Hey, you wanna create a wiki page at techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/ ? > > This would allow you to collaborate better .... > Any more discussion on this? WIKI is great for this sort of stuff. my 2 cents Cheers, Robby -- Robby Russell, | Sr. Administrator / Lead Programmer Command Prompt, Inc. | http://www.commandprompt.com rrussell@commandprompt.com | Telephone: (503) 222.2783
Robby Russell wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > Guys, > > > > Hey, you wanna create a wiki page at techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/ ? > > > > This would allow you to collaborate better .... > > > > Any more discussion on this? > > WIKI is great for this sort of stuff. Can someone explain what WIKI is? I assumed it was just a web page where you could append comments. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Robby Russell wrote: > >>Josh Berkus wrote: >> >>>Guys, >>> >>>Hey, you wanna create a wiki page at techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/ ? >>> >>>This would allow you to collaborate better .... >>> >> >>Any more discussion on this? >> >>WIKI is great for this sort of stuff. > > > Can someone explain what WIKI is? I assumed it was just a web page > where you could append comments. > Wiki is basically a system that allows people to (usually login) and edit content of a webpage and dynamically create pages using WIKI specific syntax. Also allows for going back revisions (like cvs somewhat) and is fairly easy to learn how to use. WhatIsWiki : http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki Largest wiki that I know of: http://en.wikipedia.org/ This would allow multiple people to manage content of pages without needing to get server access to update html pages. (and is easy to deploy and 'theme') -Robby -- Robby Russell, | Sr. Administrator / Lead Programmer Command Prompt, Inc. | http://www.commandprompt.com rrussell@commandprompt.com | Telephone: (503) 222.2783
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:51:19PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Robby Russell wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > > > Hey, you wanna create a wiki page at techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/ ? > > > > WIKI is great for this sort of stuff. > > Can someone explain what WIKI is? I assumed it was just a web page > where you could append comments. You can actually edit the whole page (using a special syntax, not straight HTML). I agree it would be best. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Las mujeres son como hondas: mientras más resistencia tienen, más lejos puedes llegar con ellas" (Jonas Nightingale, Leap of Faith)
>Can someone explain what WIKI is? I assumed it was just a web page >where you could append comments. > > > It is basically a revision able forum. -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
I'd be happy to set up the initial wiki for techdocs. I've suggested it before. I'd just need access to the host. It is easy to set up and comes with built-in instructions. --elein On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:08:00AM -0800, Robby Russell wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >Robby Russell wrote: > > > >>Josh Berkus wrote: > >> > >>>Guys, > >>> > >>>Hey, you wanna create a wiki page at techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/ ? > >>> > >>>This would allow you to collaborate better .... > >>> > >> > >>Any more discussion on this? > >> > >>WIKI is great for this sort of stuff. > > > > > >Can someone explain what WIKI is? I assumed it was just a web page > >where you could append comments. > > > > Wiki is basically a system that allows people to (usually login) and > edit content of a webpage and dynamically create pages using WIKI > specific syntax. Also allows for going back revisions (like cvs > somewhat) and is fairly easy to learn how to use. > > WhatIsWiki : http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki > > Largest wiki that I know of: http://en.wikipedia.org/ > > This would allow multiple people to manage content of pages without > needing to get server access to update html pages. (and is easy to > deploy and 'theme') > > -Robby > > > -- > Robby Russell, | Sr. Administrator / Lead Programmer > Command Prompt, Inc. | http://www.commandprompt.com > rrussell@commandprompt.com | Telephone: (503) 222.2783 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match
People, > I'd be happy to set up the initial wiki for techdocs. > I've suggested it before. I'd just need access to > the host. WE ALREADY HAVE A WIKI!!!! Geez, how many times do I gotta say it? http://techdocs.postgresql.org/guides It could use replacement with a "more advanced" wiki, but it's there right now. -- -Josh Berkus ______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________ Josh Berkus Complete information technology josh@agliodbs.com and data management solutions (415) 565-7293 for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533 and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
We already have a wiki for techdocs set up, thats what the current guides are in. we've had some issues with it in the past... what wiki software do you recommend? Robert Treat On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 15:09, elein wrote: > I'd be happy to set up the initial wiki for techdocs. > I've suggested it before. I'd just need access to > the host. > > It is easy to set up and comes with built-in instructions. > > --elein > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:08:00AM -0800, Robby Russell wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >Robby Russell wrote: > > > > > >>Josh Berkus wrote: > > >> > > >>>Guys, > > >>> > > >>>Hey, you wanna create a wiki page at techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/ ? > > >>> > > >>>This would allow you to collaborate better .... > > >>> > > >> > > >>Any more discussion on this? > > >> > > >>WIKI is great for this sort of stuff. > > > > > > > > >Can someone explain what WIKI is? I assumed it was just a web page > > >where you could append comments. > > > > > > > Wiki is basically a system that allows people to (usually login) and > > edit content of a webpage and dynamically create pages using WIKI > > specific syntax. Also allows for going back revisions (like cvs > > somewhat) and is fairly easy to learn how to use. > > > > WhatIsWiki : http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki > > > > Largest wiki that I know of: http://en.wikipedia.org/ > > > > This would allow multiple people to manage content of pages without > > needing to get server access to update html pages. (and is easy to > > deploy and 'theme') > > > > -Robby > > > > > > -- > > Robby Russell, | Sr. Administrator / Lead Programmer > > Command Prompt, Inc. | http://www.commandprompt.com > > rrussell@commandprompt.com | Telephone: (503) 222.2783 > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > > joining column's datatypes do not match > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Chill, dude. No yelling. I've just set up a couple of local wikis lately. I know there is already one on techdocs, but I know no one uses it, too. I prefer moin, the python based wiki. After wrangling with a php wiki, I really prefer the more sophisticated approach of moin. Success of a wiki depends on its adoption which depends to a certain amount on subtle management of anarchy. I also have the revamp of techdocs on my plate, but a wiki revamp would give more bang for the buck faster. --elein On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 12:27:09PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > People, > > > I'd be happy to set up the initial wiki for techdocs. > > I've suggested it before. I'd just need access to > > the host. > > WE ALREADY HAVE A WIKI!!!! Geez, how many times do I gotta say it? > > http://techdocs.postgresql.org/guides > > It could use replacement with a "more advanced" wiki, but it's there right > now. > > -- > -Josh Berkus > > ______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________ > Josh Berkus > Complete information technology josh@agliodbs.com > and data management solutions (415) 565-7293 > for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533 > and non-profit organizations. San Francisco > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
OK, I've found the wiki stuff to be quite easy to work with. The list of guides is here: http://techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/index_html While the brand spanking new page for this subject is here: http://techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/Database_5fcomparison
xzilla@users.sourceforge.net says... Hi all, I am very familiar with Interbase and Firebird. I have recently started looking at PostgreSQL, and I am currently reading extensively about it. I don't wish to start a flame war or anything, but some of the claims in this post are just downright wrong - it's a bit like PostgreSQLers giving out about M$ or Oracle or <insert vendor of choice> making false claims about Open Source software. Interbase/Firebird is probably (at least as far as I can see) the closest to PostgreSQL in terms of other available databases, and while I have no objection whatsoever to anybody pointing out the benefits of PostgreSQL, I really feel that it shouldn't be done by telling mistruths. > PostgreSQL 7.4 Pros: > -- Extensible Architecture: create your own types, aggregates, > functions, operators, libraries. > 73-> now allows ploymorphic functions > vs-> oracle, db2, m$, mysql, firebird Firebird offers functions and libraries and the ability to create your own types. > -- 100% Open Source Community Controlled: contributions are not > controlled by any single company, so your suggestions and patches are as > good as anyone's. > 73-> two additional companies now sponsoring core members > vs-> oracle, db2, m$, mysql, firebird Firebird is fully Open Source. No flame wars about the particular licence please. MySQL is also Open Source - you may not like the fact that you have to pay for it if you use it in commercial apps, but it is Open Source. > -- Many support options: you have a choice of numerous support vendors > rather than being confined to one company. > 73-> n/a > vs-> oracle, db2, m$, mysql, firebird There are a few (perhaps not as many as several) vendors who support Firebird. > -- BSD-licensed: may be used for commercial applications without fees. > 73-> n/a > vs-> oracle, db2, m$, mysql, firebird Oh dear - you most certainly *_can_* use Firebird for free in commerical apps. > -- Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC) ensures transaction > integrity, better scalability > 73-> n/a > vs-> m$, mysql It's a bit unfair to point at M$ here - locking and versioning each have their pros and cons. > -- Database Programming: Support for functions and procedures in 11 or > more programming languages. Support for triggers, constraints, and > Rules-based query rewriting. > 73-> new pl lang (plr) > vs-> db2, m$, mysql, firebird In Firebird IIRC, you can write dll's or so's in any language you like, and use these as user defined functions. > -- Responsive Community: Mailing lists offer peer-to-peer assistance > from major PostgreSQL contributors and advanced DBAs, often described as > "better than commercial support." > 73-> n/a > vs-> oracle, db2, firebird Here I really *_really_* have to object. The Firebird community has an excellent Community spirit, where those who contribute to the engine also help out end users. > -- Scalability: the MVCC system and other parts of our architecture > make PostgreSQL scale very well across hundreds of concurrent read/write > users. > 73-> n/a > vs-> m$, mysql, firebird Firebird has the exact same architecture - they call it MGA or Multi- Generational-Architecture, which is identical to MVCC in principal. > -- Durability: The PostgreSQL project is 16 years old, with years more > experience than most comparable databases, commercial or OSS. PostgreSQL > has already survived the death of several supporting companies and will > be around for a long time to come. > 73-> n/a > vs-> mysql, firebird Again, this is misleading to say the least. Firebird is a fork of Borland's Interbase, which dates from 1981, so Firebird already has the keys to the house (21) whereas PostgreSQL has yet to have its first legal drink (18). > Robert Treat -- plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post.
Paul Ganainm wrote: > Interbase/Firebird is probably (at least as far as I can see) the > closest to PostgreSQL in terms of other available databases, and while I > have no objection whatsoever to anybody pointing out the benefits of > PostgreSQL, I really feel that it shouldn't be done by telling > mistruths. Firebird is a good product. I can't speak for Mr. Treat, but I think you will find any misstated facts about said database to be purely unintentional. The story of Interbase is a sad one. Borland really dropped the ball, charging 3000$ for its development kit (enterprise Delphi/bcb) PLUS site licensing for the database. Many developers got stung by the BDE and vowed never to return to Borland software (many of them are probably running linux today). During the mid 90's it was surely the most advanced platform available for win32 application development. By the time Borland switched gears, it was too late and MS sql server took over the small/medium business market. Here in the advocacy, the contributors here almost always try to present arguments in a factual, objective light. Having programmed in C++ Builder in the past, I know where you are coming from. Merlin p.s. one of my peeves wrt Firebird was the 64k row limit, is that still the case?
Paul, > I am very familiar with Interbase and Firebird. I have recently started > looking at PostgreSQL, and I am currently reading extensively about it. > I don't wish to start a flame war or anything, but some of the claims in > this post are just downright wrong Well, we're glad to have you to help. While most of us have a general idea of what Firebird is, I don't think anyone on this list actively uses it. When/if we do a grid/feature comparison, your help would be invaluable in making that comparison with Firebird accurate. Also keep in mind that this is an internal discussion list, so people do not feel restricted to only extensively researched facts. There's a lot of "throwing ideas out there". > Interbase/Firebird is probably (at least as far as I can see) the > closest to PostgreSQL in terms of other available databases, Yeah. I've recommended it to a number of people who can't wait for our Win32 port. > MySQL is also Open Source - you may not like the fact > that you have to pay for it if you use it in commercial apps, but it is > Open Source. MySQL is Open Source *released*, true, but it's not Open Source developed. All code for MySQL goes through MySQL AB employees. Corporate ownership of OSS projects is an established model ... Eclipse, OpenOffice.org, Sendmail, etc. share this model with MySQL ... but it *does* make them significantly different from us. As a Firebird user, you should know the danger of corporate ownership, after Borland "yanked back" the trademark, web resources, and their developers from the project. MySQL AB could do the same thing, and unlike Firebird I'm not sure a fork of MySQL, under a different name, would survive. Frankly, I'm surprised that Firebird did and it's a testament to that project's user community that it's still here. People may pooh-pooh this warning, but I feel that the LGPL-->GPL fiasco with the MySQL libraries shows that MySQL AB, as any company would, is willing to put their financial advatage over the survival of their OSS project. Such a "take-back" is not possible with PostgreSQL as nobody "owns" the postgresql code, and what IP ownership exists is distributed among the core team and contributors. > There are a few (perhaps not as many as several) vendors who support > Firebird. Yah. More should. Do you know anybody who does Firebird web hosting? > Oh dear - you most certainly *_can_* use Firebird for free in commerical > apps. Good. Can you explain the Firebird license to me? I want to know it in case I have a project that calls for Firebird .... > It's a bit unfair to point at M$ here - locking and versioning each have > their pros and cons. Sure. But we feel that versioning is better. As a professional MSSQL admin, I strongly feel that versioning is much better than locking -- insoluable deadlocks anyone?. Since we feel it's the better approach, why shouldn't we trumpet it? The proponents of "transaction-spooling" databases are certainly happy to champion their model. > In Firebird IIRC, you can write dll's or so's in any language you like, > and use these as user defined functions. Also cool. > Here I really *_really_* have to object. The Firebird community has an > excellent Community spirit, where those who contribute to the engine > also help out end users. Good. I may need it someday. > Again, this is misleading to say the least. Firebird is a fork of > Borland's Interbase, which dates from 1981, so Firebird already has the > keys to the house (21) whereas PostgreSQL has yet to have its first > legal drink (18). Touche' ! Seriously, that point was to point out the durability of PostgreSQL *as an open source project*. One of the big questions I get from companies is "how do I know that the PostgreSQL Project will be around in 3 years?" (my first answer is, "How do you know that MSSQL server will be around in 3 years? MS has killed projects before, and MSSQL is a money-loser ...") But your point shows that we need to have 2 columns .... "age of software" and "age of OSS project". For that matter, MySQL the software is about 2 years older than MySQL-GPL. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Saturday 22 November 2003 12:17, Paul Ganainm wrote:
> xzilla@users.sourceforge.net says...
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> I am very familiar with Interbase and Firebird. I have recently started
> looking at PostgreSQL, and I am currently reading extensively about it.
> I don't wish to start a flame war or anything, but some of the claims in
> this post are just downright wrong - it's a bit like PostgreSQLers
> giving out about M$ or Oracle or <insert vendor of choice> making false
> claims about Open Source software.
>
> Interbase/Firebird is probably (at least as far as I can see) the
> closest to PostgreSQL in terms of other available databases, and while I
> have no objection whatsoever to anybody pointing out the benefits of
> PostgreSQL, I really feel that it shouldn't be done by telling
> mistruths.
>
Wow, I think your response here is even more unfair than my initial post. Let
me quote my original email:
"I also can't speak to the accuracy of my listing of the other databases, if
you have recent experience with them please add or subtract as you see fit."
I said that precisely because I had a good feeling that my knowledge of some
of these database is limited, and I was hoping to garner the most accurate
information possible.
> > PostgreSQL 7.4 Pros:
> > -- Extensible Architecture: create your own types, aggregates,
> > functions, operators, libraries.
> >
> > 73-> now allows ploymorphic functions
> >
> > vs-> oracle, db2, m$, mysql, firebird
>
> Firebird offers functions and libraries and the ability to create your
> own types.
>
I also think you misunderstood exactly what I am presenting in this breakdown.
My listing of databases is not a listing of deficiencies in the other
databases. Again, I'll quote the original email
"... followed by short list of database that the particular pro stacks
up against."
AFAIK, and I could certainly be wrong, the level of support in postgresql for
custom operators, types, aggregates, libraries, and functions is superior to
any of the databases listed here.
A good example is our function language support. While most of the databases
above support some type of procedural language, do any of them support more
than 10 different types of procedural languages? Or do they have an
extensible enough codebase that can allow people to create their own
languages, like Joe Conway recently did with plR, or the folks at Command
Prompt have been doing with plPHP? (Of course this assumes you even have
access to the source code in the first place!)
That is what I mean by "stacks up against", when comparing databases, this
would be a feature worth highlighting from a <postgresql advocates> position.
BTW - Was just reading that M$ plans to support the CRE in Longhorn by 2005,
which will give developers the ability to write stored procedures in many
different languages.
> > -- 100% Open Source Community Controlled: contributions are not
> > controlled by any single company, so your suggestions and patches are as
> > good as anyone's.
> >
> > 73-> two additional companies now sponsoring core members
> >
> > vs-> oracle, db2, m$, mysql, firebird
>
> Firebird is fully Open Source. No flame wars about the particular
> licence please. MySQL is also Open Source - you may not like the fact
> that you have to pay for it if you use it in commercial apps, but it is
> Open Source.
>
I seem to recall reading that most of the firebird core developers all work
for the same commercial company, perhaps that is not true?
In any case, it certainly holds up with mysql, as Josh addressed in his
response. One thing he didn't mention, which I still think is true, is that
in order to have a patch accepted into mysql, you have to turn copyright over
to them for inclusion in their proprietary products.
> > -- Many support options: you have a choice of numerous support vendors
> > rather than being confined to one company.
> >
> > 73-> n/a
> >
> > vs-> oracle, db2, m$, mysql, firebird
>
> There are a few (perhaps not as many as several) vendors who support
> Firebird.
Right, but with PostgreSQL, you have 4 of the 5 core members all employed by
different support companies, and there are several other high caliber
companies to choose from on top of that contribute code back into the
project. Again, I just think that PostgreSQL's position in this department
is favorable compared to the other databases listed.
(BTW - the 5th member is employed by yet a 5th company, but not a PostgreSQL
support company)
>
> > -- BSD-licensed: may be used for commercial applications without fees.
> >
> > 73-> n/a
> >
> > vs-> oracle, db2, m$, mysql, firebird
>
> Oh dear - you most certainly *_can_* use Firebird for free in commerical
> apps.
Hmm.. I should have put the qualifier "closed-source" commercial applications,
since you can also use mysql with commercial applications as long as your
willing to gpl them. Does this still apply to firebird? My understanding is
that their license is sort of MPL-ish...
>
> > -- Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC) ensures transaction
> > integrity, better scalability
> > 73-> n/a
> > vs-> m$, mysql
>
> It's a bit unfair to point at M$ here - locking and versioning each have
> their pros and cons.
i think Josh responded to this one already.
>
> > -- Database Programming: Support for functions and procedures in 11 or
> > more programming languages. Support for triggers, constraints, and
> > Rules-based query rewriting.
> > 73-> new pl lang (plr)
> > vs-> db2, m$, mysql, firebird
>
> In Firebird IIRC, you can write dll's or so's in any language you like,
> and use these as user defined functions.
>
Hmm... I'd guess there is something similar for folks running firebird on
*nix? Actually I'd guess that all of these database have *some way* of doing
this, but again, I don't think its as easy or as extensible as postgresql.
> > -- Responsive Community: Mailing lists offer peer-to-peer assistance
> > from major PostgreSQL contributors and advanced DBAs, often described as
> > "better than commercial support."
> > 73-> n/a
> > vs-> oracle, db2, firebird
>
> Here I really *_really_* have to object. The Firebird community has an
> excellent Community spirit, where those who contribute to the engine
> also help out end users.
OK, fair enough, but I don't see much permeation of firebird outside of the
firebird community. To be fair, postgresql is just starting to get to this
point, where you'll see support for postgresql in a wide range of software.
Heres an example, if I want to write php applications against firebird, who
do I do it? I just took a swing through the php function list and I don't
see anything that jumps out to me as firebird support. (fbsql turns out to be
frontbase support) I looked at the dbx module, which proclaims to support
frontbase, m$, mysql, odbc, postgresql, sybase, oracle, and sqlite. Where is
firebird?
Still, you might be right that firebird shouldn't be included above. I don't
think I have heard of anyone who left firebird because of the support level
from the community.
>
> > -- Durability: The PostgreSQL project is 16 years old, with years more
> > experience than most comparable databases, commercial or OSS. PostgreSQL
> > has already survived the death of several supporting companies and will
> > be around for a long time to come.
> > 73-> n/a
> > vs-> mysql, firebird
>
> Again, this is misleading to say the least. Firebird is a fork of
> Borland's Interbase, which dates from 1981, so Firebird already has the
> keys to the house (21) whereas PostgreSQL has yet to have its first
> legal drink (18).
>
Well, if you really want to pull out pedigrees, PostgreSQL is a direct
descendant of Ingres, which IIRC came about in 1977, which would make us 26.
But seriously, I think the point of the above is that our community has been
around for a long time and is well established. Firebird has only been on
it's own for a little more than 3 years and I think the biggest hurdle it has
had to overcome is the whole mozilla browser naming problem (which I think
the db folks were right in btw). Certainly the case can be made with any
open source software that it can truly never die, but if IBPhoenix were to go
under, how much of an effect would that have on the firebird community? At
this point I feel pretty confident that if any of our primary support
companies were to pull out, this community would just keep on moving.
So thats the long of it from our side, please feel welcome to educate us more
on firebird if you want. Should anyone decide to make a more permanent
document out of all of this I'd like for them to have accurate information.
For that matter, please also feel free to post things that you feel firebird
has an advantage on over postgresql, part of advocacy is being able to
address our weak points as well.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com says... > Firebird is a good product. I can't speak for Mr. Treat, but I think > you will find any misstated facts about said database to be purely > unintentional.=20=20 Indeed, from the responses, people here seem to be very open and interested in getting to the truth. > The story of Interbase is a sad one. Borland really dropped the ball, > charging 3000$ for its development kit (enterprise Delphi/bcb) PLUS site > licensing for the database. You are suggesting royalty free distribution of the server if you have purchased Delphi/BCB? Might have been an idea. I have recently purchased "The Complete Reference SQL" by Groff and Weinberg - it seems good. They have the histories of several RDBMS products (incl. yours, and some I'd never heard of) but not even a mention of Interbase or Firebird. I really really think that Interbase/Firebird is good stuff, and I am constantly surprised that it doesn't get much exposure. > Many developers got stung by the BDE and > vowed never to return to Borland software Indeed, the BDE seems with hindsight to have been a disaster. They should have developed custom components per db server - at least the biggies - maybe the problem was that they were trying to promote their own db? Though, the Interbase specific components only came out in 3 or 4, and even then they were offered by a third party - there's a wierd situation at the moment where the IBX (Interbase Express) components are not developed by Borland themselves, but neither are they Open Source. > (many of them are probably > running linux today). During the mid 90's it was surely the most > advanced platform available for win32 application development. By the > time Borland switched gears, it was too late and MS sql server took over > the small/medium business market. MSDE - royalty free distribution with small(ish) databases - certainly I think that helped. Plus, the admin tools were always a lot smoother. > Here in the advocacy, the contributors here almost always try to present > arguments in a factual, objective light. I'm not disputing that for a second. It does seem to me though that a lot of the stuff about Firebird that is being said is downright wrong, or out of date, or a mix of the two. > Having programmed in C++ > Builder in the past, I know where you are coming from. 8-) > Merlin > p.s. one of my peeves wrt Firebird was the 64k row limit, is that still > the case? 64k row limit - a row can't have more than 64k of data? I would be surprised if this were the case for BLOB fields - maybe for the others - I'll check it out and get back to you. Paul... -- plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post.
>>Again, this is misleading to say the least. Firebird is a fork of >>Borland's Interbase, which dates from 1981, so Firebird already has the >>keys to the house (21) whereas PostgreSQL has yet to have its first >>legal drink (18). > > > Touche' ! Of course, in Australia - both would be legal drinkers :) Chris
josh@agliodbs.com says... > Well, we're glad to have you to help. While most of us have a general idea > of what Firebird is, I don't think anyone on this list actively uses it. > When/if we do a grid/feature comparison, your help would be invaluable in > making that comparison with Firebird accurate. Sounds good to me. > Also keep in mind that this is an internal discussion list, so people do not > feel restricted to only extensively researched facts. There's a lot of > "throwing ideas out there". Hmmm... there's a difference between "throwing ideas out there" and stating falsehoods - I do accept that there was no "malice aforethought" here, all I'm trying to do is to get the facts clear. > > Interbase/Firebird is probably (at least as far as I can see) the > > closest to PostgreSQL in terms of other available databases, > Yeah. I've recommended it to a number of people who can't wait for our Win32 > port. Yes - I can't wait for your Win32 port. > > MySQL is also Open Source - you may not like the fact > > that you have to pay for it if you use it in commercial apps, but it is > > Open Source. > MySQL is Open Source *released*, true, but it's not Open Source developed. > All code for MySQL goes through MySQL AB employees. Corporate ownership of > OSS projects is an established model ... Eclipse, OpenOffice.org, Sendmail, > etc. share this model with MySQL ... but it *does* make them significantly > different from us. Agreed. > As a Firebird user, you should know the danger of corporate ownership, after > Borland "yanked back" the trademark, web resources, and their developers from > the project. It was an ill-thought out mess, compounded IIRC by a change in CEO. > MySQL AB could do the same thing, and unlike Firebird I'm not > sure a fork of MySQL, under a different name, would survive. Could I (in theory - I only wish that I was that good!) take the MySQL code and add a few lines and call it PaulieSQL and release it under the GPL? > Frankly, I'm > surprised that Firebird did and it's a testament to that project's user > community that it's still here. Still alive and kickin'. > People may pooh-pooh this warning, but I > feel that the LGPL-->GPL fiasco with the MySQL libraries shows that MySQL AB, > as any company would, is willing to put their financial advatage over the > survival of their OSS project. Got an URL for the fiasco? I've vaguely heard about this, but am still not clear. > Such a "take-back" is not possible with PostgreSQL as nobody "owns" the > postgresql code, and what IP ownership exists is distributed among the core > team and contributors. I must say that I'm confused about who has the right to do what with the various licences out there - I really will have to sit down and read it some day. > > There are a few (perhaps not as many as several) vendors who support > > Firebird. > Yah. More should. Do you know anybody who does Firebird web hosting? There's a German crowd - not sure of URL, and maybe a couple more - I'll check about that and report back. > > Oh dear - you most certainly *_can_* use Firebird for free in commerical > > apps. > Good. Can you explain the Firebird license to me? I want to know it in case > I have a project that calls for Firebird .... AFAIK, it's virtually identical to the GPL? You can use the database (through one of the clients supplied) to connect to the database and do anything that you want. You only have to start revealing your own source if you change the database source code (or the client also AFAIK). If you change the *_db_* code, you have to release that - again AFAIK, you never have to release code to your own app which uses the db as the back end. IIRC (and I may be *_completely_* wrong here - the fact that it was MPL'd by Borland originally, means that they can fold any contributed code back into their commerical product, but that nobody else can. At least AFAIK. > > It's a bit unfair to point at M$ here - locking and versioning each have > > their pros and cons. > Sure. But we feel that versioning is better. As a professional MSSQL admin, > I strongly feel that versioning is much better than locking -- insoluable > deadlocks anyone?. Since we feel it's the better approach, why shouldn't we > trumpet it? The proponents of "transaction-spooling" databases are certainly > happy to champion their model. I like the nice pejorative feel of "transaction-spooling" - must use that somewhere. > > In Firebird IIRC, you can write dll's or so's in any language you like, > > and use these as user defined functions. > Also cool. Yep - it's nifty - but there are cons - the stuff you write as UDF's (User Defined Functions) has to be fairly simple, cos it's outside transaction control. There is the Stored Procedure and Trigger Language which *_is_* under transactional control - syntax fairly like Oracle from what I can see. > > Here I really *_really_* have to object. The Firebird community has an > > excellent Community spirit, where those who contribute to the engine > > also help out end users. > Good. I may need it someday. They'll be only to happy to help (in the hope of getting a convert! 8-) ). > > Again, this is misleading to say the least. Firebird is a fork of > > Borland's Interbase, which dates from 1981, so Firebird already has the > > keys to the house (21) whereas PostgreSQL has yet to have its first > > legal drink (18). > Touche' ! > Seriously, that point was to point out the durability of PostgreSQL *as an > open source project*. Touch� - Riposte! > One of the big questions I get from companies is "how > do I know that the PostgreSQL Project will be around in 3 years?" (my first > answer is, "How do you know that MSSQL server will be around in 3 years? MS > has killed projects before, and MSSQL is a money-loser ...") How do you know that MS SQL Server is a money loser? > But your point shows that we need to have 2 columns .... "age of software" and > "age of OSS project". For that matter, MySQL the software is about 2 years > older than MySQL-GPL. <files away under useless factoids> - thanks. Paul... -- plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post.
xzilla@users.sourceforge.net says... > "I also can't speak to the accuracy of my listing of the other databases, if > you have recent experience with them please add or subtract as you see fit." Your caveat is accepted, and I think that I have fully accepted the bona fides of those who post here. > I said that precisely because I had a good feeling that my knowledge of some > of these database is limited, and I was hoping to garner the most accurate > information possible. Great - and I'll try and correct any errors (that I am sure about anyway). > > Firebird offers functions and libraries and the ability to create your > > own types. > AFAIK, and I could certainly be wrong, the level of support in postgresql for > custom operators, types, aggregates, libraries, and functions is superior to > any of the databases listed here. Accepted - maybe that was the kneejerk reaction of a satisfied user of Interbase/Firebird. > A good example is our function language support. While most of the databases > above support some type of procedural language, do any of them support more > than 10 different types of procedural languages? Maybe this is a silly question, but do you really need more than 10? What's the matter with one that does a great job? > Or do they have an > extensible enough codebase that can allow people to create their own > languages, like Joe Conway recently did with plR, or the folks at Command > Prompt have been doing with plPHP? I need this explained to me in a bit more detail - URL? > (Of course this assumes you even have > access to the source code in the first place!) Obviously this discussion is taking place in the context of Open Source dbs - with Oracle or M$oft, such a discussion is meaningless. > That is what I mean by "stacks up against", when comparing databases, this > would be a feature worth highlighting from a <postgresql advocates> position. Accepted. > BTW - Was just reading that M$ plans to support the CRE in Longhorn by 2005, > which will give developers the ability to write stored procedures in many > different languages. OK. > > Firebird is fully Open Source. No flame wars about the particular > > licence please. MySQL is also Open Source - you may not like the fact > > that you have to pay for it if you use it in commercial apps, but it is > > Open Source. > I seem to recall reading that most of the firebird core developers all work > for the same commercial company, perhaps that is not true? Nope - I don't think so. There are a few who work for IBPhoenix, who consult on Interbase and Firebird and restore corrupted dbs &c., but there is a lot of work done by non IBPhoenix people. Take a look at the dev list on sourceforge - you may also be able to see a list of committers and their affiliation. With the *_Interbase_* Open Source, the only allowed committers were AFAIK, Borland employees, but this project died after a few months, and was re-embraced and re-extended by Borland. > In any case, it certainly holds up with mysql, as Josh addressed in his > response. One thing he didn't mention, which I still think is true, is that > in order to have a patch accepted into mysql, you have to turn copyright over > to them for inclusion in their proprietary products. I'm not sure how the IPL (MPL variant) works on this for Borland. They *_may_* implicitly have the right to fold donated code into their commercial stuff, but I'm not sure. Anyway one of the guys on the Interbase lists said that the products were diverging anyway, so it wouldn't make sense. > > There are a few (perhaps not as many as several) vendors who support > > Firebird. > Right, but with PostgreSQL, you have 4 of the 5 core members all employed by > different support companies, and there are several other high caliber > companies to choose from on top of that contribute code back into the > project. Again, I just think that PostgreSQL's position in this department > is favorable compared to the other databases listed. OK. > (BTW - the 5th member is employed by yet a 5th company, but not a PostgreSQL > support company) > > Oh dear - you most certainly *_can_* use Firebird for free in commerical > > apps. > Hmm.. I should have put the qualifier "closed-source" commercial applications, > since you can also use mysql with commercial applications as long as your > willing to gpl them. Does this still apply to firebird? My understanding is > that their license is sort of MPL-ish... You are certainly allowed deploy commercial apps which user Interbase Open Source (discontinued) or Firebird for *_no licence fee whatsoever_*. I've done it! > > It's a bit unfair to point at M$ here - locking and versioning each have > > their pros and cons. > i think Josh responded to this one already. Yep. > > In Firebird IIRC, you can write dll's or so's in any language you like, > > and use these as user defined functions. > Hmm... I'd guess there is something similar for folks running firebird on > *nix? Actually I'd guess that all of these database have *some way* of doing > this, but again, I don't think its as easy or as extensible as postgresql. Probably not. > > Here I really *_really_* have to object. The Firebird community has an > > excellent Community spirit, where those who contribute to the engine > > also help out end users. > OK, fair enough, but I don't see much permeation of firebird outside of the > firebird community. Which is a shame. > To be fair, postgresql is just starting to get to this > point, where you'll see support for postgresql in a wide range of software. > Heres an example, if I want to write php applications against firebird, who > do I do it? I just took a swing through the php function list and I don't > see anything that jumps out to me as firebird support. (fbsql turns out to be > frontbase support) I looked at the dbx module, which proclaims to support > frontbase, m$, mysql, odbc, postgresql, sybase, oracle, and sqlite. Where is > firebird? I don't know much (anything) about PHP - but I do know that there are Firebird users who use it. > Still, you might be right that firebird shouldn't be included above. I don't > think I have heard of anyone who left firebird because of the support level > from the community. It would surprise me, people really make an effort. > > Again, this is misleading to say the least. Firebird is a fork of > > Borland's Interbase, which dates from 1981, so Firebird already has the > > keys to the house (21) whereas PostgreSQL has yet to have its first > > legal drink (18). > Well, if you really want to pull out pedigrees, I'll show you mine if you show me yours! 8-) > PostgreSQL is a direct > descendant of Ingres, which IIRC came about in 1977, which would make us 26. Point taken. > But seriously, I think the point of the above is that our community has been > around for a long time and is well established. Firebird has only been on > it's own for a little more than 3 years and I think the biggest hurdle it has > had to overcome is the whole mozilla browser naming problem (which I think > the db folks were right in btw). Thanks - I know that the Firebird (real one) people will be glad of that. > Certainly the case can be made with any > open source software that it can truly never die, but if IBPhoenix were to go > under, how much of an effect would that have on the firebird community? At > this point I feel pretty confident that if any of our primary support > companies were to pull out, this community would just keep on moving. Can't answer your question about "what if?" - there is, as I said, a sizeable nucleus that does not have IBPhoenix affiliations. > So thats the long of it from our side, please feel welcome to educate us more > on firebird if you want. Should anyone decide to make a more permanent > document out of all of this I'd like for them to have accurate information. > For that matter, please also feel free to post things that you feel firebird > has an advantage on over postgresql, part of advocacy is being able to > address our weak points as well. Your graciousness does you and the project honour sir! I've only just started with PostgreSQL, and to be honest, the one that literally *_screams_* at me is "Ease of use" - esp Windo$e, but it holds for Linux too. When I say "Ease of use", I mean for a reasonably IT savvy person to be able to get up and running and be functional with - that does not mean that IB/FB is in any way a "toy" db - an accusation that I have heard in the past! Yes, I know, you and I mightn't like it, but W$oze is the OS of choice for most organisations (though that is changing!). I haven't got down and dirty into PostgreSQL yet, but I will pipe up as I start to get a handle on things. Paul... > Robert Treat -- plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post.
> > A good example is our function language support. While most of the databases > > above support some type of procedural language, do any of them support more > > than 10 different types of procedural languages? > Maybe this is a silly question, but do you really need more than 10? > What's the matter with one that does a great job? Aside from languages that excel at certain jobs (plR) it is useful to provide what a shop already knows. Perl shops will prefer perl, PHP shops will prefer php, etc. > > Or do they have an > > extensible enough codebase that can allow people to create their own > > languages, like Joe Conway recently did with plR, or the folks at Command > > Prompt have been doing with plPHP? > I need this explained to me in a bit more detail - URL? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-createlanguage.html http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plhandler.html
Paul,
> Hmmm... there's a difference between "throwing ideas out there" and
> stating falsehoods -
I'm pretty sure his e-mail contained a "probably lots of innaccuracies"
disclaimer. 'nuff said.
> Could I (in theory - I only wish that I was that good!) take the MySQL
> code and add a few lines and call it PaulieSQL and release it under the
> GPL?
Yep. But, as members of the Firebird project should be aware, you have 2
hurdles to overcome:
a) probably about 90% of the knowledge or MySQL code, internals, and
architecture belongs exclusively to MySQL employees. You would have to
replicate all of that knowledge through reverse engineering in order to be
able to support PaulieSQL (based on numerous complaints that the MySQL code
is poorly documented and confusing). Effectively, to fork the project you
have to supply an entire development team, not just one or two people.
b) MySQL trademark, domains, and "mind share" would still belong to MySQL AB.
This is actually a huge hurdle as people who tried to fork the OpenOffice.org
code found out ("Real Office" or something of the sort) as projects with no
"Slashdot recognition" find it hard-to-impossible to attact new developers.
Both of these hurdles *can* be overcome, as Firebird has demonstrated, but
most projects are not able to. In the case of MySQL, 98% of their user base
are already people who don't like messing with the internals of things, and
don't care that they don't understand the source. This makes them a very
poor developer pool for starting a fork.
> Got an URL for the fiasco? I've vaguely heard about this, but am still
> not clear.
No. It happened on mailing lists, and I've lost the link to relevant
archives. Let me give you a blow-by-blow based on conversations I had at
PHPCon:
Last spring, the PHP developers got interested in SQLite and started debating
the wisdom of their being "joined at the hip" to MySQL.
Last summer, MySQL AB, without advance notice to anyone including the MySQL
community, licensed the MySQL 4 client library as GPL and not LGPL as earlier
libraries were. This meant that projects with different licenses, such as
PHP, could no longer ship the MySQL client libraries with their code unless
they paid MySQL AB for a commercial license. E-mails from leaders of the
PHP community to MySQL leadership were ignored.
This fall, the PHP project announced that PHP5 will not ship with any MySQL
libraries or with default MySQL support, but will instead include SQLite and
ship with support for that library enabled. Fully 50% of the attendees at
PHPCon came to talk to us at the PostgreSQL booth ....
> I must say that I'm confused about who has the right to do what with the
> various licences out there - I really will have to sit down and read it
> some day.
Well, our license, the BSD license, says "do anything you want, just include
the license and don't sue us."
> IIRC (and I may be *_completely_* wrong here - the fact that it was
> MPL'd by Borland originally, means that they can fold any contributed
> code back into their commerical product, but that nobody else can. At
> least AFAIK.
Hmmm ... is it still MPL'ed? I don't mind contributing mods to the Firebird
community, but I'm not going to write code for Borland for free.
> I like the nice pejorative feel of "transaction-spooling" - must use
> that somewhere.
<grin> It's not perjorative. Transaction-spooling does make some things,
such as incremental backup and point-in-time recovery much, much easier.
Unfortunately, it is also sort of a "single-user database" strategy and
causes many problems around locking and transaction isolation which are not
necessarily solvable. Still, it's a very valid architecture for some database
uses.
> There is the Stored Procedure and Trigger Language which *_is_* under
> transactional control - syntax fairly like Oracle from what I can see.
You guys desperately need a better name for that.
> How do you know that MS SQL Server is a money loser?
Microsoft's 2002 SEC filing. In fact, all of their software products lose
money except Windows and Office. They keep SQL Server alive becuase it's
part of their "vertical business" domination scheme.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
People: > No. It happened on mailing lists, and I've lost the link to relevant > archives. Let me give you a blow-by-blow based on conversations I had at > PHPCon: > > Last spring, the PHP developers got interested in SQLite and started > debating the wisdom of their being "joined at the hip" to MySQL. WARNING: for accuracy, that "story" comes from "shooting the sh*t" with two PHP developers over drinks. So it's probably *not* entirely accurate!!! -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 13:47, Paul Ganainm wrote:
> xzilla@users.sourceforge.net says...
>
> > A good example is our function language support. While most of the databases
> > above support some type of procedural language, do any of them support more
> > than 10 different types of procedural languages?
>
>
> Maybe this is a silly question, but do you really need more than 10?
> What's the matter with one that does a great job?
>
Rod Taylor touched on this, mention something like plR which is based on
the R statistical language. Every language has it's strengths and
weaknesses, with a variety of languages to choose from you can choose
the best tool for the job. And by best I mean I am able to write
functions in tcl to do socket connections that I would normally have to
write in C. Given my inferior C skills, that's certainly a bonus.
> > > Firebird is fully Open Source. No flame wars about the particular
> > > licence please. MySQL is also Open Source - you may not like the fact
> > > that you have to pay for it if you use it in commercial apps, but it is
> > > Open Source.
>
>
> > I seem to recall reading that most of the firebird core developers all work
> > for the same commercial company, perhaps that is not true?
>
>
> Nope - I don't think so. There are a few who work for IBPhoenix, who
> consult on Interbase and Firebird and restore corrupted dbs &c., but
> there is a lot of work done by non IBPhoenix people. Take a look at the
> dev list on sourceforge - you may also be able to see a list of
> committers and their affiliation.
>
> With the *_Interbase_* Open Source, the only allowed committers were
> AFAIK, Borland employees, but this project died after a few months, and
> was re-embraced and re-extended by Borland.
>
Ahh... maybe I was confusing the two. Well, thats good for the firebase
community, and puts them a step ahead of oracle/m$/mysql/etc... in my
book.
>
> > In any case, it certainly holds up with mysql, as Josh addressed in his
> > response. One thing he didn't mention, which I still think is true, is that
> > in order to have a patch accepted into mysql, you have to turn copyright over
> > to them for inclusion in their proprietary products.
>
> I'm not sure how the IPL (MPL variant) works on this for Borland. They
> *_may_* implicitly have the right to fold donated code into their
> commercial stuff, but I'm not sure. Anyway one of the guys on the
> Interbase lists said that the products were diverging anyway, so it
> wouldn't make sense.
>
> > > Oh dear - you most certainly *_can_* use Firebird for free in commerical
> > > apps.
>
> > Hmm.. I should have put the qualifier "closed-source" commercial applications,
> > since you can also use mysql with commercial applications as long as your
> > willing to gpl them. Does this still apply to firebird? My understanding is
> > that their license is sort of MPL-ish...
>
>
> You are certainly allowed deploy commercial apps which user Interbase
> Open Source (discontinued) or Firebird for *_no licence fee
> whatsoever_*.
>
> I've done it!
>
Maybe I just need to go read the IPL, but if you do that, don't you have
to make copies of your code available? With BSD you can modify the code
and sell it and you don't have to expose that code to no one not ever
never :-) While a lot of open source folks don't like that fact, it's
certainly a boon to business to not have to worry about it.
BTW - Not sure if your aware, but there is an interpretation of the gpl
that says that if your software would not operate without the existence
of a gpl'd piece of software, then your software should be gpl as well.
This would include applications hard coded to connect to only one
database. Now, I don't necessarily agree with this POV, but a company
like mysql would have a lot to gain if that interpretation were to ever
be confirmed legally.
>
> > > In Firebird IIRC, you can write dll's or so's in any language you like,
> > > and use these as user defined functions.
>
> > Hmm... I'd guess there is something similar for folks running firebird on
> > *nix? Actually I'd guess that all of these database have *some way* of doing
> > this, but again, I don't think its as easy or as extensible as postgresql.
>
>
> Probably not.
Doh! That's kind of a downer... I'm one of those folks who would never
choose to run a production database on windows...
> > To be fair, postgresql is just starting to get to this
> > point, where you'll see support for postgresql in a wide range of software.
> > Heres an example, if I want to write php applications against firebird, who
> > do I do it? I just took a swing through the php function list and I don't
> > see anything that jumps out to me as firebird support. (fbsql turns out to be
> > frontbase support) I looked at the dbx module, which proclaims to support
> > frontbase, m$, mysql, odbc, postgresql, sybase, oracle, and sqlite. Where is
> > firebird?
>
>
> I don't know much (anything) about PHP - but I do know that there are
> Firebird users who use it.
>
yes... i know there are people doing this as well, but I can't see how
they do it unless they are using the generic odbc connection
functions... odd.
> > But seriously, I think the point of the above is that our community has been
> > around for a long time and is well established. Firebird has only been on
> > it's own for a little more than 3 years and I think the biggest hurdle it has
> > had to overcome is the whole mozilla browser naming problem (which I think
> > the db folks were right in btw).
>
>
> Thanks - I know that the Firebird (real one) people will be glad of
> that.
>
>
> > Certainly the case can be made with any
> > open source software that it can truly never die, but if IBPhoenix were to go
> > under, how much of an effect would that have on the firebird community? At
> > this point I feel pretty confident that if any of our primary support
> > companies were to pull out, this community would just keep on moving.
>
>
> Can't answer your question about "what if?" - there is, as I said, a
> sizeable nucleus that does not have IBPhoenix affiliations.
>
Ok... sounds like the community has "spread its wings" a bit more than I
had thought.
>
> > So thats the long of it from our side, please feel welcome to educate us more
> > on firebird if you want. Should anyone decide to make a more permanent
> > document out of all of this I'd like for them to have accurate information.
> > For that matter, please also feel free to post things that you feel firebird
> > has an advantage on over postgresql, part of advocacy is being able to
> > address our weak points as well.
>
>
> Your graciousness does you and the project honour sir!
>
>
> I've only just started with PostgreSQL, and to be honest, the one that
> literally *_screams_* at me is "Ease of use" - esp Windo$e, but it holds
> for Linux too.
>
>
> When I say "Ease of use", I mean for a reasonably IT savvy person to be
> able to get up and running and be functional with - that does not mean
> that IB/FB is in any way a "toy" db - an accusation that I have heard in
> the past!
>
> Yes, I know, you and I mightn't like it, but W$oze is the OS of choice
> for most organisations (though that is changing!).
>
> I haven't got down and dirty into PostgreSQL yet, but I will pipe up as
> I start to get a handle on things.
>
Please do, I think you've already been pretty informative so far.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 13:47, Paul Ganainm wrote: >> xzilla@users.sourceforge.net says... >> >> > A good example is our function language support. While most of the databases >> > above support some type of procedural language, do any of them support more >> > than 10 different types of procedural languages? >> >> >> Maybe this is a silly question, but do you really need more than 10? >> What's the matter with one that does a great job? >> > > Rod Taylor touched on this, mention something like plR which is based on > the R statistical language. Every language has it's strengths and > weaknesses, with a variety of languages to choose from you can choose > the best tool for the job. And by best I mean I am able to write > functions in tcl to do socket connections that I would normally have to > write in C. Given my inferior C skills, that's certainly a bonus. The real point is, that if you find a procedural language that matches the language your application is written in, chances are that you don't run into many data representation difficulties and (more important) the developers most likely know what they're doing. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
> The real point is, that if you find a procedural language that matches > the language your application is written in, chances are that you don't > run into many data representation difficulties and (more important) the > developers most likely know what they're doing. Well said! That is what makes plphp such an important and interesting project. If it was up to me (it isn't), my company would be 100% focused on migrating to this platform for application development. Merlin
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when paulsnewsgroups@hotmail.com (Paul Ganainm) wrote: > Maybe this is a silly question, but do you really need more than 10? > What's the matter with one that does a great job? Well, why do you imagine that there is more than one programming language available on _any_ platform? The answer is that different languages provide more convenient notations for different purposes, or other useful properties. PL/R, at one 'extreme,' provides access to a statistical language, providing convenient notation for working with arrays to do "math stuff." PL/pgsql, on the other hand, provides, with a tiny burden of libraries and such, provides looping and control structures with a "SQL-style" notation very similar to Oracle's PL/SQL language. PL/Perl allows embedding code that uses Perl's rich set of regular expression syntax, which can sometimes be convenient. PL/C isn't notationally very nice, requiring that you go through the gory hoops of C memory management, but it allows exact control of what is going on, and tight loops can be optimized to death by your C compiler. There's why you might want to have those four particular choices around. C++, Ruby, Python, TCL, and Java all have fans, too, which is why those languages exist in the first place. -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com'; http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/languages.html Signs of a Klingon Programmer - 15. "Python? That is for children. A Klingon Warrior uses only machine code, keyed in on the front panel switches in raw binary."
Paul Ganainm wrote: > > merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com says... > > > > Firebird is a good product. I can't speak for Mr. Treat, but I think > > you will find any misstated facts about said database to be purely > > unintentional.=20=20 > > > Indeed, from the responses, people here seem to be very open and > interested in getting to the truth. We are not! :-) > > The story of Interbase is a sad one. Borland really dropped the ball, > > charging 3000$ for its development kit (enterprise Delphi/bcb) PLUS site > > licensing for the database. > > > You are suggesting royalty free distribution of the server if you have > purchased Delphi/BCB? > > > Might have been an idea. I have recently purchased "The Complete > Reference SQL" by Groff and Weinberg - it seems good. They have the > histories of several RDBMS products (incl. yours, and some I'd never > heard of) but not even a mention of Interbase or Firebird. > Good book --- I learned SQL from an early Groff book in the early 90's and have the book you are mentioning. > I really really think that Interbase/Firebird is good stuff, and I am > constantly surprised that it doesn't get much exposure. Yep, we are too, and I have to admit I suspect that PostgreSQL is part of it --- in some ways, I am sure we have sucked up users and devlopers that might have gone to Firebird if we weren't here. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Paul Ganainm wrote: > > A good example is our function language support. While most of the databases > > above support some type of procedural language, do any of them support more > > than 10 different types of procedural languages? > > > Maybe this is a silly question, but do you really need more than 10? > What's the matter with one that does a great job? How are you going to obfuscate your app without using several languages? SAP-DB used Pascal, Python, and C in the backend for reason. What job security! (Ducks for cover.) :-) > > I seem to recall reading that most of the firebird core developers all work > > for the same commercial company, perhaps that is not true? > > > Nope - I don't think so. There are a few who work for IBPhoenix, who > consult on Interbase and Firebird and restore corrupted dbs &c., but Man, we need to get us some of that "corruption" to boost consuting fees! :-) I just checked my Groff book and I don't see PostgreSQL mentioned in the index. It is dated copyright 1999. Do you have a newer edition? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: >>I really really think that Interbase/Firebird is good stuff, and I am >>constantly surprised that it doesn't get much exposure. > > > Yep, we are too, and I have to admit I suspect that PostgreSQL is part > of it --- in some ways, I am sure we have sucked up users and devlopers > that might have gone to Firebird if we weren't here. Back a few years when my company was looking at open-source databases (and $$$ dbs also), Firebird and Postgresql were the top two contendors. Unfortunately, we had also decided that Solaris x86 was going to be our platform (this is back during Sol7 when it seemed like Sun was going the right direction) and the only Solaris x86 Firebird info I could was somebody posting in a Russian usenet forum that he began testing a port. (Had to use AV tools just to read the message.) I see in the FB downloads page that Solaris x86 is supported now but the initial release date of 02-02 would have been years too late for us.
Robert Treat wrote: >>>To be fair, postgresql is just starting to get to this >>>point, where you'll see support for postgresql in a wide range of software. >>>Heres an example, if I want to write php applications against firebird, who >>>do I do it? I just took a swing through the php function list and I don't >>>see anything that jumps out to me as firebird support. (fbsql turns out to be >>>frontbase support) I looked at the dbx module, which proclaims to support >>>frontbase, m$, mysql, odbc, postgresql, sybase, oracle, and sqlite. Where is >>>firebird? >> >>I don't know much (anything) about PHP - but I do know that there are >>Firebird users who use it. > > yes... i know there are people doing this as well, but I can't see how > they do it unless they are using the generic odbc connection > functions... odd. It might be possible to use the "InterBase functions" for accesing Firebird from PHP. I'm not sure, though. Cheers, Adrian Maier
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us says... > > Nope - I don't think so. There are a few who work for IBPhoenix, who > > consult on Interbase and Firebird and restore corrupted dbs &c., but > Man, we need to get us some of that "corruption" to boost consuting > fees! :-) Well, this becomes an issue because Interbase is so easy to use (esp. on Windows) that people "take liberties" - run it on Wintendo 98 on an end user's machine with forced writes turned off - if you look after your system, it will look after you. > I just checked my Groff book and I don't see PostgreSQL mentioned in the > index. It is dated copyright 1999. Do you have a newer edition? Yes, I have the second edition which has an Appendix B - Vendor Profiles - in which PostgreSQL is mentioned. Paul... -- plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post.
Paul Ganainm wrote: > > I just checked my Groff book and I don't see PostgreSQL mentioned in the > > index. It is dated copyright 1999. Do you have a newer edition? > > Yes, I have the second edition which has an Appendix B - Vendor Profiles > - in which PostgreSQL is mentioned. I have the first edition and it isn't there. I will check next time I am in the book store. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
xzilla@users.sourceforge.net says... > Every language has it's strengths and > weaknesses, with a variety of languages to choose from you can choose > the best tool for the job. OK - granted. > > With the *_Interbase_* Open Source, the only allowed committers were > > AFAIK, Borland employees, but this project died after a few months, and > > was re-embraced and re-extended by Borland. > Ahh... maybe I was confusing the two. Happens quite a bit. > Well, thats good for the firebase > community, and puts them a step ahead of oracle/m$/mysql/etc... in my > book. Indeed. > > You are certainly allowed deploy commercial apps which user Interbase > > Open Source (discontinued) or Firebird for *_no licence fee > > whatsoever_*. > > I've done it! > Maybe I just need to go read the IPL, but if you do that, don't you have > to make copies of your code available? No. You only have to make modifications to the engine available, not if you hook into the db using your own code through ODBC or Delphi components. > With BSD you can modify the code > and sell it and you don't have to expose that code to no one not ever > never :-) While a lot of open source folks don't like that fact, it's > certainly a boon to business to not have to worry about it. Indeed - again, a discussion of the merits of the various Open Source licences is beyond the scope of this thread. All I *_can_* say for absolute certain is that if you deploy Firebird (or Interbase Open Source) you do not have to disclose your code - you only have to do this if you modify the database engine itself, not for using it. > BTW - Not sure if your aware, but there is an interpretation of the gpl > that says that if your software would not operate without the existence > of a gpl'd piece of software, then your software should be gpl as well. I believe that the MPL/IPL was devised to get around that problem. > This would include applications hard coded to connect to only one > database. Now, I don't necessarily agree with this POV, but a company > like mysql would have a lot to gain if that interpretation were to ever > be confirmed legally. I don't think this is applicable to Firebird. > > > Hmm... I'd guess there is something similar for folks running firebird on > > > *nix? Actually I'd guess that all of these database have *some way* of doing > > > this, but again, I don't think its as easy or as extensible as postgresql. > > Probably not. > Doh! That's kind of a downer... I'm one of those folks who would never > choose to run a production database on windows... I'm not sure whether we're talking at cross purposes here. With the systems for which Firebird is available, it is certainly possible to write functions using native lanaguages. > > I don't know much (anything) about PHP - but I do know that there are > > Firebird users who use it. > yes... i know there are people doing this as well, but I can't see how > they do it unless they are using the generic odbc connection > functions... odd. Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firebird-php/ - why is it odd to do it using ODBC? > > I haven't got down and dirty into PostgreSQL yet, but I will pipe up as > > I start to get a handle on things. > Please do, I think you've already been pretty informative so far. Look forward to it. Paul... > Robert Treat -- plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post.
* Paul Ganainm <paulsnewsgroups@hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> > > Yeah. I've recommended it to a number of people who can't wait for our Win32 > > port. > > Yes - I can't wait for your Win32 port. Do you really feel, you want this ? Well, for the price of a win2k3 server license you can afford an own machine. btw: yesterday I had a look at M$'s pricing. Win2k3 (5usr) costs about 1kE and MSSQL(10usr) about 2k6E (w/o taxes), mssql w/ unlimited users costs about 22kE. these prices are really heavy! Is there anything on mssql which makes it worth such values, anything which psql cannot ? (beside of some powerful business software vendors like Sage, who refuse to support anything other than mssql, but did not yet understand fundamental concepts of relational database design ...) <snip> > Could I (in theory - I only wish that I was that good!) take the MySQL > code and add a few lines and call it PaulieSQL and release it under the > GPL? Well, if the original code *is* released under GPL (isnt it? - long time it wasn't IIRC), I dont see anything which should forbid you to do so (as long you respect all the terms of the GPL) But the interesting point is, would such a forkoff be successful ? Will there enough people working on that so let it the project survive ? <snip> > > Yah. More should. Do you know anybody who does Firebird web hosting? Probably an old friend of mine: http://www.dbtech.de/ Some time ago he played around w/ interbase and felt quite happy w/ it (well, he only knew mysql before ... ;-)). But if I remember right, he wanted to migrate to psql a while ago ... <snip> > > Good. Can you explain the Firebird license to me? I want to know it in case > > I have a project that calls for Firebird .... > > AFAIK, it's virtually identical to the GPL? You can use the database hmm, then why not GPL ? there's probably some important difference (just a feeling ...) <snip> > If you change the *_db_* code, you have to release that - again AFAIK, > you never have to release code to your own app which uses the db as the > back end. Sounds like LGPL. <snip> > IIRC (and I may be *_completely_* wrong here - the fact that it was > MPL'd by Borland originally, means that they can fold any contributed > code back into their commerical product, but that nobody else can. At > least AFAIK. Sounds like netscape / QT license. I'm not happy with this. <snip> > Yep - it's nifty - but there are cons - the stuff you write as UDF's > (User Defined Functions) has to be fairly simple, cos it's outside > transaction control. How is this solved in psql ? I've only written some simple string conversion function, nothing more complex yet. BTW: a really nice feature in psql are user defined operators (coupled w/ opcache). It makes things like conversions quite easy and performant. Which other RDBMS also support that ? <snip> > > One of the big questions I get from companies is "how > > do I know that the PostgreSQL Project will be around in 3 years?" (my first > > answer is, "How do you know that MSSQL server will be around in 3 years? MS > > has killed projects before, and MSSQL is a money-loser ...") > > > How do you know that MS SQL Server is a money loser? hmm. did any customer already asked that ? ;-) cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact@metux.de cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: <snip> > This fall, the PHP project announced that PHP5 will not ship with any MySQL > libraries or with default MySQL support, but will instead include SQLite and > ship with support for that library enabled. Fully 50% of the attendees at > PHPCon came to talk to us at the PostgreSQL booth .... Did mysql ab respond to this in any way ? <snip> > Well, our license, the BSD license, says "do anything you want, just include > the license and don't sue us." May I also include the postmaster into my own (propretriaty) product, i.e. bundleded or built in ? Well, then it probably *would* be interesting to have a win32 port. I had a similar case, when I planned to write an GUI admin tool for our webshop application service. But probably for this case SQLite probably does a better job. <snip> > > How do you know that MS SQL Server is a money loser? > > Microsoft's 2002 SEC filing. In fact, all of their software products lose > money except Windows and Office. They keep SQL Server alive becuase it's > part of their "vertical business" domination scheme. Do you have any URL for that ? Would be a good marketing material for migrating away from M$-SQL (for those where prices up to 22kE are not enought ;-)) BTW: does anyone here have already migrated some larger commercial application from mssql to pgsql ? We've got some customers which use sage khk and so need mssql and w2k3. Sage does not have any intention even to thing about supporting anything else than mssql :( cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact@metux.de cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: <snip> > AFAIK, and I could certainly be wrong, the level of support in postgresql for > custom operators, types, aggregates, libraries, and functions is superior to > any of the databases listed here. Which other RDBMS also support these features ? And which syntax do they use for that ? (same than psql ?) <snip> > BTW - Was just reading that M$ plans to support the CRE in Longhorn by 2005, > which will give developers the ability to write stored procedures in many > different languages. But: plan to do != doing ;-) They also planned to create a usable shell interpreter. What came out was "windows scripting host" ... oh, well ... <snip> > In any case, it certainly holds up with mysql, as Josh addressed in his > response. One thing he didn't mention, which I still think is true, is that > in order to have a patch accepted into mysql, you have to turn copyright over > to them for inclusion in their proprietary products. Hah, I should also start such a project. Let others do my work for $0 ;-) <snip> > Hmm... I'd guess there is something similar for folks running firebird on > *nix? Actually I'd guess that all of these database have *some way* of doing > this, but again, I don't think its as easy or as extensible as postgresql. Well, it can't be easier, since - some years ago, when I didnt cope with such things yet - my doctor has sent me an working code snippet for writing a simple function ;-) cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact@metux.de cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Paul Ganainm <paulsnewsgroups@hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> > When I say "Ease of use", I mean for a reasonably IT savvy person to be > able to get up and running and be functional with - that does not mean > that IB/FB is in any way a "toy" db - an accusation that I have heard in > the past! Isnt psql easy to set up ? The only nasty thing is (IMHO) that on major updates the whole database has to be reconstructed from dump. This requires to take the postmaster down some minutes - on very large database this can also take quite a while. cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact@metux.de cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------