Thread: Sourceforge moving to DB2
Sourceforge (VA Software), in a deal with IBM, is moving away from
PostgreSQL and Oracle and moving to use DB2 and IBM software for their
site:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2120770,00.html
--
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
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Sourceforge (VA Software), in a deal with IBM, is moving away from > PostgreSQL and Oracle and moving to use DB2 and IBM software for their > site: > > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2120770,00.html What's next? MSSQL? Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking http://www.camping-usa.com http://www.cloudninegifts.com http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com ==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber wrote: > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Sourceforge (VA Software), in a deal with IBM, is moving away from > > PostgreSQL and Oracle and moving to use DB2 and IBM software for their > > site: > > > > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2120770,00.html > > What's next? MSSQL? Yes, Sourceforge (VA Software) is pretty much all over the map looking for revenue, and the article alludes to that. Ultimately, I don't think they will be successful. -- 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
Vince Vielhaber sez: } On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: } } > Sourceforge (VA Software), in a deal with IBM, is moving away from } > PostgreSQL and Oracle and moving to use DB2 and IBM software for their } > site: } > } > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2120770,00.html } } What's next? MSSQL? That's hardly fair. I'm a big fan of PostgreSQL, and I think it's great software produced and supported by great people. I promoted it to my company and we decided on it for our web application despite the lack of support for it provided by our hosting service. (Please don't tell me about hosting services that support PostgreSQL; I know, I don't care, we're already committed.) Still, when I was working on research in grad school and needed to show performance results, I ditched PostgreSQL and used DB2. The advantage of PostgreSQL over DB2 is cost, and little else (you can claim the community support is better, and you're probably right, but DB2 has commercial support). The advantages of DB2 over PostgreSQL are numerous and varied, including performance, SQL compliance, SQL extensions, first-class optimized ODBC and JDBC drivers, etc. They are comparable in ease of installation and use (I've installed, administered, and used both on various platforms), and DB2's administration tools are better. When the cost becomes equivalent, such as when IBM offers DB2 free for academic use or offers it in a deal to VA, DB2's disadvantages with respect to PostgreSQL disappear. If I could get IBM to hand me (i.e. my company) a commercial license to DB2 at no cost, I'd ditch PostgreSQL in an instant. Note that this does not apply to all commercial DB software. I'd rather use PostgreSQL than anything locked to a single platform (e.g. MSSQL), I've heard horror stories about administering Oracle, and I don't know much of anything about Informix or Sybase. I simply feel that DB2 is a superior product among existing DB systems, commercial or otherwise, and PostgreSQL doesn't come close. } Vince. --Greg
No question, DB2 is very good and doesn't get the respect it deserves. We were making more of a joke that Sourceforge is trying a new DB every year. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Seidman wrote: > Vince Vielhaber sez: > } On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > } > } > Sourceforge (VA Software), in a deal with IBM, is moving away from > } > PostgreSQL and Oracle and moving to use DB2 and IBM software for their > } > site: > } > > } > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2120770,00.html > } > } What's next? MSSQL? > > That's hardly fair. I'm a big fan of PostgreSQL, and I think it's great > software produced and supported by great people. I promoted it to my > company and we decided on it for our web application despite the lack of > support for it provided by our hosting service. (Please don't tell me about > hosting services that support PostgreSQL; I know, I don't care, we're > already committed.) Still, when I was working on research in grad school > and needed to show performance results, I ditched PostgreSQL and used DB2. > > The advantage of PostgreSQL over DB2 is cost, and little else (you can > claim the community support is better, and you're probably right, but DB2 > has commercial support). The advantages of DB2 over PostgreSQL are numerous > and varied, including performance, SQL compliance, SQL extensions, > first-class optimized ODBC and JDBC drivers, etc. They are comparable in > ease of installation and use (I've installed, administered, and used both > on various platforms), and DB2's administration tools are better. > > When the cost becomes equivalent, such as when IBM offers DB2 free for > academic use or offers it in a deal to VA, DB2's disadvantages with respect > to PostgreSQL disappear. If I could get IBM to hand me (i.e. my company) a > commercial license to DB2 at no cost, I'd ditch PostgreSQL in an instant. > > Note that this does not apply to all commercial DB software. I'd rather use > PostgreSQL than anything locked to a single platform (e.g. MSSQL), I've > heard horror stories about administering Oracle, and I don't know much of > anything about Informix or Sybase. I simply feel that DB2 is a superior > product among existing DB systems, commercial or otherwise, and PostgreSQL > doesn't come close. > > } Vince. > --Greg > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- 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
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 12:19, Gregory Seidman wrote: > Vince Vielhaber sez: > } On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > } > } > Sourceforge (VA Software), in a deal with IBM, is moving away from > } > PostgreSQL and Oracle and moving to use DB2 and IBM software for their > } > site: > } > > } > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2120770,00.html > } > } What's next? MSSQL? > > That's hardly fair. I'm a big fan of PostgreSQL, and I think it's great > software produced and supported by great people. > <snip> > When the cost becomes equivalent, such as when IBM offers DB2 free for > academic use or offers it in a deal to VA, DB2's disadvantages with respect > to PostgreSQL disappear. If I could get IBM to hand me (i.e. my company) a > commercial license to DB2 at no cost, I'd ditch PostgreSQL in an instant. <snip> I simply feel that DB2 is a superior > product among existing DB systems, commercial or otherwise, and PostgreSQL > doesn't come close. > > } Vince. > --Greg > Without turning this into a my DB vs. your DB thread, it would make little sense to port the entire code base of the size of sourceforge's to a new database system unless you were experiencing trouble with the current db back end, which afaik they did not have trouble with. What was far more likely to be a motivating factor was the new partnership offered to VA Software that will open up a revenue stream they drastically need. Personally I think tying Sourcforge to websphere/db2 makes the product weaker but perhaps they can find a way to enhance it on db2 that they couldn't with their current db set-up. Trying to set up all of the requisite parts of the sourceforge system on your own is a nightmare; that they couldn't package that solution and market it successfully says something about the difficulty of trying to run a software company based on open source projects. Robert Treat
Hi, Am Dienstag, 13. August 2002 18:19 schrieb Gregory Seidman: ... > > The advantage of PostgreSQL over DB2 is cost, and little else (you can > claim the community support is better, and you're probably right, but DB2 > has commercial support). The advantages of DB2 over PostgreSQL are numerous > and varied, including performance, SQL compliance, SQL extensions, > first-class optimized ODBC and JDBC drivers, etc. They are comparable in > ease of installation and use (I've installed, administered, and used both > on various platforms), and DB2's administration tools are better. > ... > > } Vince. > --Greg > There are other (less technical) points. The licence of PostgreSQL allowes to extend your service without asking some IBM or someone else for additional licences. It is just convenient. And if you have problems and probably can solve it for yourself: in PostgreSQL you are allowed to fix it. Another point is the future. If you would like to try out the new AMD-Hammer for example, you can recompile PostgreSQL for yourself. But if IBM chooses not to support your future platform, you are lost. The other side is responsiblity. If you choose DB2 IBM is responsable for it. What if some day your data get corrupted? IBM will help you (for money of course, but they must). On PostgreSQL you are more or less on your own. There is no so strong commercial support. These points do not belong just to Sourceforge, but these are arguments for choosing one database or the other. Tommi
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Tommi Maekitalo wrote: > The other side is responsiblity. If you choose DB2 IBM is responsable for it. > What if some day your data get corrupted? IBM will help you (for money of > course, but they must). Sorry, but this is not the case. A few years back, a co-worker discovered that his backup software had been writing corrupted data to the second and subsequent tapes of every multivolume backup. Unfortunately for him, he discovered that only when he'd lost some data that he needed to restore. The vendor (a major backup software vendor in the 90s, whose name I shan't mention to protect the guilty) said, "Oh, yes, there's a bug in that version, upgrade to this one." But they didn't do anything to help him get his lost data back. Basically, he was f**ked, even though the problem was demonstrably the vendor's fault and he had a support contract. So no, sorry to say, vendors are generally not responsible for the problems they cause, unless it's convenient for them to fix them. They are, however, good for putting lots of 1st and 2nd line "technical support" people between you and the folks who can solve your problems. cjs -- Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
Hi Tommi, Tommi Maekitalo wrote: > <snip> > The other side is responsiblity. If you choose DB2 IBM is responsable for it. > What if some day your data get corrupted? IBM will help you (for money of > course, but they must). On PostgreSQL you are more or less on your own. There > is no so strong commercial support. That pretty much summed it up. :) The "There is no so strong commercial support", is changing really fast though. LibertyRMS, the guys who manage the .info namespace with replicated PostgreSQL servers, use the support services of a large PostgreSQL support company and are very happy with it. :) PostgreSQL support companies just haven't marketed themselves widely is all. :-( Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift > These points do not belong just to Sourceforge, but these are arguments for > choosing one database or the other. > > Tommi -- "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
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 10:45:56PM +1000, Justin Clift wrote:
> LibertyRMS, the guys who manage the .info namespace with replicated
> PostgreSQL servers, use the support services of a large PostgreSQL
> support company and are very happy with it. :)
We are indeed very happy with the support we've had (from
PostgreSQL, Inc., if you must know; but I'm sure their worthy
competitors in that market also provide good support. This is not
the pgsql-inc-advocacy list, after all ;-). And happy with
PostgreSQL, too. There is, however, the "open secret" problem still:
not everyone in the company, including some very senior people, like
talking very much about our use of PostgreSQL (although I believe
that is changing).
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > There is, however, the "open secret" problem still: not everyone in > the company, including some very senior people, like talking very much > about our use of PostgreSQL (although I believe that is changing). I am running into a similar situation. Commercial verses OpenSource. When I suggested an OpenSource solution (in this case it wasn't a database) I heard that no one knows it whereas they know about xxx. I had never heard of xxx, oh well. In another situation the client wanted bragging rights. At $1500 a pop for extra licenses (5 i believe) they can brag all they want. Me, I'd spend the money on infrastruture. Rod -- "Open Source Software - Sometimes you get more than you paid for..."
I'm redirecting this to -advocacy, because I guess it belongs there
mostly.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 11:36:39AM -0700, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> > There is, however, the "open secret" problem still: not everyone in
> > the company, including some very senior people, like talking very much
> > about our use of PostgreSQL (although I believe that is changing).
>
> I am running into a similar situation. Commercial verses OpenSource.
> When I suggested an OpenSource solution (in this case it wasn't a
> database) I heard that no one knows it whereas they know about xxx. I had
> never heard of xxx, oh well.
One has heard this argument from time to time, but it always strikes
me as bizarre. It relies essentially on an appeal to popularity.
This is a well-known fallacy: you should do _x_ because some large
percentage of the population does _x_. Aside from the fallaciousness
(it's really a fallacy of relevance), in technology even more than in
most areas with network effects, it is a really lousy argument: it
entails both that you should adopt _exactly_ whatever everyone else
is using (and then hope that the features you want get added), and
that you should never innovate (because. for instance, a massive
percentage of currently running programs are written in FORTRAN and
COBOL).
Indeed, the "nobody knows your product" is really just the old
schoolyard taunt: "nobody likes you, y'know." Finding a way of
dimplomatically saying, "Well, I and all my friends know xxx" is the
only answer here.
(Note that there is a slightly different argument for PostgreSQL to
get around: "PostgreSQL isn't that popular, so it will be hard to
find DBAs." This one happens to be true at the moment, although it
is getting better.)
> In another situation the client wanted bragging rights. At $1500 a pop
> for extra licenses (5 i believe) they can brag all they want. Me, I'd
> spend the money on infrastruture.
I should think that in the period where big profits suddenly tun into
US$6 billion losses, being able to brag that you're using "the most
expensive machine in the hospital" will wear out your welcome at the
bank pretty fast. I know that being able to replace $100,000 license
fees with zeros is the sort of thing that makes _my_ CEO happy.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I'm redirecting this to -advocacy, because I guess it belongs there > mostly. > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 11:36:39AM -0700, Roderick A. Anderson wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > > > > There is, however, the "open secret" problem still: not everyone in > > > the company, including some very senior people, like talking very much > > > about our use of PostgreSQL (although I believe that is changing). > > > > I am running into a similar situation. Commercial verses OpenSource. > > When I suggested an OpenSource solution (in this case it wasn't a > > database) I heard that no one knows it whereas they know about xxx. I had > > never heard of xxx, oh well. > > One has heard this argument from time to time, but it always strikes > me as bizarre. It relies essentially on an appeal to popularity. > This is a well-known fallacy: you should do _x_ because some large > percentage of the population does _x_. Aside from the fallaciousness > (it's really a fallacy of relevance), in technology even more than in > most areas with network effects, it is a really lousy argument: it > entails both that you should adopt _exactly_ whatever everyone else > is using (and then hope that the features you want get added), and > that you should never innovate (because. for instance, a massive > percentage of currently running programs are written in FORTRAN and > COBOL). Actually, one of the best things people can do is to know when going with the popular choice _isn't_ the best answer. Most people never ask that question. -- 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