Thread: Linux Journal Editors Choice Awards
Looks like we got an honourable mention *sigh*: Server Appliance: SnapGear for Lite/Lite+ SOHO Firewall/VPN Client Honorable Mention: Sun Microsystems for Cobalt Qube Security Tool: GPG Web Server: IBM for xSeries Honorable Mention: Sun Microsystems for Cobalt RaQ XRT Enterprise Application Server: Zope Technical Workstation: HP for x4000 Web Client (Tie): Mozilla and Galeon Honorable Mention: Konqueror Graphics Application: The GIMP Consumer Software: KDE 3.0 Communication Tool: Ximian for Evolution Development Tool: Emacs Honorable Mentions: Borland for Kylix, and Kdevelop Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL Backup Software: Sistina Software for Logical Volume Manager Office Application: Sun Microsystems for OpenOffice 1.0 Mobile Device: Sharp for Zaurus Training and Certification Program: Linux Professional Institute Game: Sunspire Studios for TuxRacer Honorable Mention: Pysol Technical Book: Linux Device Drivers 2nd Edition by Alessandro Rubini and Jonathan Corbet (O'Reilly & Associates) Non-Technical Book: The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World by Lawrence Lessig (Random House) Web Site: Google Product of the Year: Sharp for Zaurus http://www.linuxjournal.com/edchoice/ Chris
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL Nothing wrong with that. From your list it seemed that in the categories where there were competing open source and open source/commercial backed software then the latter seemed to win over. This makes sense if their judging criteria included things like 'commercial support contracts', 'service level agreements', 'warranties', etc. Gavin
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL > > Nothing wrong with that. From your list it seemed that in the categories > where there were competing open source and open source/commercial backed > software then the latter seemed to win over. > > This makes sense if their judging criteria included things like > 'commercial support contracts', 'service level agreements', 'warranties', > etc. I think the whole thing's pretty biased anyway. I mean the open source database market now includes SapDB for crying out loud - how can MySQL (and even postgres really) compete with that? And what about Firebird? I think the nominations were put forward by a bunch of people who've only ever heard of MySQL and PostgreSQL... (Not that I'd switch to SapDB ;) ) Chris
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > database market now includes SapDB for crying out loud - how can MySQL (and > even postgres really) compete with that? And what about Firebird? I think And berkeley db. *Easily* the most widely used open source database and the most profitable. :) Gavin
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > > Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL > > > > Nothing wrong with that. From your list it seemed that in the categories > > where there were competing open source and open source/commercial backed > > software then the latter seemed to win over. > > > > This makes sense if their judging criteria included things like > > 'commercial support contracts', 'service level agreements', 'warranties', > > etc. > > I think the whole thing's pretty biased anyway. I mean the open source > database market now includes SapDB for crying out loud - how can MySQL (and > even postgres really) compete with that? And what about Firebird? I think > the nominations were put forward by a bunch of people who've only ever heard > of MySQL and PostgreSQL... > > (Not that I'd switch to SapDB ;) ) No question there is bias. 50% of the awards racket is just to generate traffic of people who want to see who you picked. Red Hat DB won for "Productivity Application" last year at LinuxWorld. I think they just applied for everything. -- 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, Pennsylvania19073
* Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> [2002-09-03 10:17 +0800]: > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > > Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL > > > > Nothing wrong with that. From your list it seemed that in the categories > > where there were competing open source and open source/commercial backed > > software then the latter seemed to win over. > > > > This makes sense if their judging criteria included things like > > 'commercial support contracts', 'service level agreements', 'warranties', > > etc. > > I think the whole thing's pretty biased anyway. I mean the open source > database market now includes SapDB for crying out loud - how can MySQL (and > even postgres really) compete with that? PostgreSQL code and build process is maintainable. Besides, I don't think that PostgreSQL is no match for SAPdb, as PostgreSQL will have a native win32 port, replication, schemas and prepared statements in the forseeable future. What else is missing? Cross-database queries? I suspect that at the current pace, PostgreSQL will match SAPdb's features reasonably soon. Btw. SAPdb has a win32 port, but still doesn't run on most Unixen (not even on FreeBSD), which brings me back the the "maintainable code and build process" point ;-) > And what about Firebird? You can get commercial support for it, too. Just as for PostgreSQL and SAPdb. -- Gerhard
Actually, Linux Journal (and their editors) are fans of PostgreSQL. This year, MySQL may actually have clued in to transactions and a few other big database features. I don't know that they actually *have* these features polished up, but LJ is giving them credit for trying... - Thomas
Thomas Lockhart wrote: > Actually, Linux Journal (and their editors) are fans of PostgreSQL. > > This year, MySQL may actually have clued in to transactions and a few > other big database features. I don't know that they actually *have* > these features polished up, but LJ is giving them credit for trying... Yea, but that assume we are sitting here doing nothing. We are advancing at light speed compared to the other open source databases. I don't think anyone disputes that. -- 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, Pennsylvania19073
> Actually, Linux Journal (and their editors) are fans of PostgreSQL. > > This year, MySQL may actually have clued in to transactions and a few > other big database features. I don't know that they actually *have* > these features polished up, but LJ is giving them credit for trying... It still disturbs me that you have to use a non-standard table type to support transactions, plus the hijinks that will occur when you attempt to perform a transaction that involves changes to transactional and non-transactional tables... "If you do a ROLLBACK when you have updated a non-transactional table you will get an error (ER_WARNING_NOT_COMPLETE_ROLLBACK) as a warning. All transactional safe tables will be restored but any non-transactional table will not change." Chris
Le Mardi 3 Septembre 2002 04:28, Gerhard Häring a écrit : > PostgreSQL will have a > native win32 port, Just out of interest, what is the advancement of the Windows port. Best regards, Jean-Michel