Thread: erServer beta
Hi all,
Does anyone know if the erServer beta is still available from the
PostgreSQL Inc. website?
I can't seem to find it, only the rserv version.
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
everything that is currently available is actually in contrib right now
... Thomas is currently working on tools for it, but nothing ready for
even beta testing yet ..
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Justin Clift wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Does anyone know if the erServer beta is still available from the
> PostgreSQL Inc. website?
>
> I can't seem to find it, only the rserv version.
>
> Regards and best wishes,
>
> Justin Clift
>
> --
> "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
> who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
> first group; there was less competition there."
> - Indira Gandhi
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
At 4/15/01 3:20 PM, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: >everything that is currently available is actually in contrib right now >... Thomas is currently working on tools for it, but nothing ready for >even beta testing yet .. Hmmm? At http://www.erserver.com/, there's a page that starts off: "eRServer was released for Beta on December 24, 2000." And then it has links to download eRServer tools from the pgsql.com site. Is this different from what's in the contrib directory? I've never quite been able to get straight in my head whether eRServer is an Open Source project, or whether it's initially closed source and planned to be released as Open Source later, or what; there was lots of confusing talk about it a while back (confused me, anyway). Can someone in the know give us a definite explanation of what kind of project eRServer is, how it's going to be developed, what its current state is, etc.? I really could use replication, but it doesn't seem clear whether the eRServer stuff is going be further developed in a way that I could use (what's there is somewhat unpolished so far, although the initial effort is appreciated). -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
The short and simple of it is that what has currently been developed is in /contrib ... we will not release anything into the Open Source until we *at least* have a running release and package, which is when we put erserver into /contrib ... Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded it ... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to do something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and Open Sourcing it would detract from that ... On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Robert L Mathews wrote: > At 4/15/01 3:20 PM, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > > >everything that is currently available is actually in contrib right now > >... Thomas is currently working on tools for it, but nothing ready for > >even beta testing yet .. > > Hmmm? At http://www.erserver.com/, there's a page that starts off: > > "eRServer was released for Beta on December 24, 2000." > > And then it has links to download eRServer tools from the pgsql.com site. > > Is this different from what's in the contrib directory? I've never quite > been able to get straight in my head whether eRServer is an Open Source > project, or whether it's initially closed source and planned to be > released as Open Source later, or what; there was lots of confusing talk > about it a while back (confused me, anyway). > > Can someone in the know give us a definite explanation of what kind of > project eRServer is, how it's going to be developed, what its current > state is, etc.? I really could use replication, but it doesn't seem clear > whether the eRServer stuff is going be further developed in a way that I > could use (what's there is somewhat unpolished so far, although the > initial effort is appreciated). > > -- > Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Christopher Masto wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:38:36AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded it > > ... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a > > client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to do > > something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and Open > > Sourcing it would detract from that ... > > Not necessarily. There is a long history of paying for software > development, not because you want it to horde, but because you want it > to exist. Happens all the time in the GNU camp, and with certain > FreeBSD projects. > > If/when we "fund" Postgres development, for example, it would remain free. Correct, and understood ... our *policy* is to encourage clients to go that direction, as well, but its ultimately their decision. If we had unlimited funding, everything we'd do would be Open Source, as we'd not *need* clients to pay for that development ... You throw out 'the GNU camp' and 'certain FreeBSD projects' ... can you not name companies that actively participate in both camps, but distribute proprietary, Closed Source software? First one off the top of my head: nVidia ... make fantastic video cards, its all I'll run ... I run on FreeBSD, so right now can't use the 3D stuff under X, because their drivers are proprietary and closed ... Linux'rs do have access to these drivers though, cause nVidia was willing to take the time to *at least* make binaries available to the community. They keep their competitive advantage by not releasing the source code to the drivers, but they give back to the community by providing the drivers to use in our "Open Source" environments ... *shrug* IMHO, there is a place for both in this world ...
At 4/15/01 10:38 PM, The Hermit Hacker wrote: >The short and simple of it is that what has currently been developed is in >/contrib ... we will not release anything into the Open Source until we >*at least* have a running release and package, which is when we put >erserver into /contrib ... OK, but I guess I'm being dense, because I still don't get it. If the current version of replication is in /contrib, and you're saying it's not yet ready for beta, then what is the stuff at http://www.erserver.com/ that says it's in beta? Are we talking about two totally different things? If so, are there any notable differences between them? >Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded it >... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a >client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to do >something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and Open >Sourcing it would detract from that ... Sure, of course. I'm just having difficulty figuring out which category eRServer is in. I've read the press release, and it implies eRServer is a combination of Open and Closed source. If that's the case, it would helpful to know what's Open Source and what's not (for example, is the current state of the eRServer code the full extent of the intended Open Source development, with future improvements being Closed Source for the forseeable future?). -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:38:36AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded it > ... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a > client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to do > something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and Open > Sourcing it would detract from that ... Not necessarily. There is a long history of paying for software development, not because you want it to horde, but because you want it to exist. Happens all the time in the GNU camp, and with certain FreeBSD projects. If/when we "fund" Postgres development, for example, it would remain free. -- Christopher Masto Senior Software Engineer Intelligence Technologies chris@netmonger.net http://www.inteltec.com Free yourself, free your machine, free the daemon -- http://www.freebsd.org/
I have some beta, row level replication stuff that I'm willing to share under open source. It doesn't know about foreign keys and such at this point, but it works OK on plain old tables. Let me know if you want a copy. The upside is that it can do bi-directional synchronization too. --rob ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy@hub.org> To: "Christopher Masto" <chris@netmonger.net> Cc: "Robert L Mathews" <lists@tigertech.com>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 6:40 PM Subject: Re: Re: erServer beta > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Christopher Masto wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:38:36AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded it > > > ... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a > > > client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to do > > > something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and Open > > > Sourcing it would detract from that ... > > > > Not necessarily. There is a long history of paying for software > > development, not because you want it to horde, but because you want it > > to exist. Happens all the time in the GNU camp, and with certain > > FreeBSD projects. > > > > If/when we "fund" Postgres development, for example, it would remain free. > > Correct, and understood ... our *policy* is to encourage clients to go > that direction, as well, but its ultimately their decision. If we had > unlimited funding, everything we'd do would be Open Source, as we'd not > *need* clients to pay for that development ... > > You throw out 'the GNU camp' and 'certain FreeBSD projects' ... can you > not name companies that actively participate in both camps, but distribute > proprietary, Closed Source software? > > First one off the top of my head: nVidia ... make fantastic video cards, > its all I'll run ... I run on FreeBSD, so right now can't use the 3D stuff > under X, because their drivers are proprietary and closed ... Linux'rs do > have access to these drivers though, cause nVidia was willing to take the > time to *at least* make binaries available to the community. They keep > their competitive advantage by not releasing the source code to the > drivers, but they give back to the community by providing the drivers to > use in our "Open Source" environments ... > > *shrug* IMHO, there is a place for both in this world ... > >
Hi Rob, If you want an initial place for it on the Net for people to see it, I'd be happy to make one on the techdocs.postgresql.org website, as replication is quite a useful thing. Alternatively, registering it on SourceForge as an Open Source project (be very choosy about the Open Source license you pick!) might be the best way of going about co-operatively having it developed. Probably other alternatives too. Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift Rob Arnold wrote: > > I have some beta, row level replication stuff that I'm willing to share > under open source. It doesn't know about foreign keys and such at this > point, but it works OK on plain old tables. Let me know if you want a copy. > The upside is that it can do bi-directional synchronization too. > > --rob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy@hub.org> > To: "Christopher Masto" <chris@netmonger.net> > Cc: "Robert L Mathews" <lists@tigertech.com>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 6:40 PM > Subject: Re: Re: erServer beta > > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Christopher Masto wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:38:36AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > > Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded > it > > > > ... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a > > > > client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to > do > > > > something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and > Open > > > > Sourcing it would detract from that ... > > > > > > Not necessarily. There is a long history of paying for software > > > development, not because you want it to horde, but because you want it > > > to exist. Happens all the time in the GNU camp, and with certain > > > FreeBSD projects. > > > > > > If/when we "fund" Postgres development, for example, it would remain > free. > > > > Correct, and understood ... our *policy* is to encourage clients to go > > that direction, as well, but its ultimately their decision. If we had > > unlimited funding, everything we'd do would be Open Source, as we'd not > > *need* clients to pay for that development ... > > > > You throw out 'the GNU camp' and 'certain FreeBSD projects' ... can you > > not name companies that actively participate in both camps, but distribute > > proprietary, Closed Source software? > > > > First one off the top of my head: nVidia ... make fantastic video cards, > > its all I'll run ... I run on FreeBSD, so right now can't use the 3D stuff > > under X, because their drivers are proprietary and closed ... Linux'rs do > > have access to these drivers though, cause nVidia was willing to take the > > time to *at least* make binaries available to the community. They keep > > their competitive advantage by not releasing the source code to the > > drivers, but they give back to the community by providing the drivers to > > use in our "Open Source" environments ... > > > > *shrug* IMHO, there is a place for both in this world ... > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi