The future of Java
in [Java Programming]
|
From: Roedy Green on 24 Nov 2009 20:42 On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:56:54 -0500, Arne Vajh�j <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >Neither have much of a choice. I have seen vendors wriggle out of these sorts of promise by creating a new product and just letting the old one languish. The wording of the GPL licence may make that difficult for Sun and Oracle. Does the licence apply to them too? Surely a vendor has the legal right to change the terms of a licence. They can always create new aux products that become indispensable. I am glad to see both Sun and Oracle have shown any sign of wriggling. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com I mean the word proof not in the sense of the lawyers, who set two half proofs equal to a whole one, but in the sense of a mathematician, where half proof = 0, and it is demanded for proof that every doubt becomes impossible. ~ Carl Friedrich Gauss
From: RedGrittyBrick on 25 Nov 2009 05:04 Roedy Green wrote: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:56:54 -0500, Arne Vajh�j <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> > wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >> Neither have much of a choice. > > I have seen vendors wriggle out of these sorts of promise by creating > a new product and just letting the old one languish. The wording of > the GPL licence may make that difficult for Sun and Oracle. Does the > licence apply to them too? Yes it does, AIUI a company that wholly acquires another as a going concern also acquires all of it's legal obligations, including those prescribed in licence terms. If MySQL gave you a licence to use MySQl, that licence is still valid after MySQL are taken over by Sun or Oracle. > Surely a vendor has the legal right to change the terms of a licence. Not retroactively. As copyright owners they can cease making available the product under the GPL and offer it to new customers using a different licence. They can't legally stop people with existing GPL licences from using the source code to fork the product and make it available under the GPL with a different product name. > They can always create new aux products that become indispensable. They can try. http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2001080201120NWGM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux_Racer#History There must be better examples :-) -- RGB
From: Arne Vajhøj on 25 Nov 2009 20:15 Lew wrote: > Lew wrote: >>> I rate MySQL far, far below Postgres, Derby and the free versions of >>> Oracle DB and IBM DB2. > > Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> We do know that there is a "cult" of people that believe that >> PostgreSQL is "enterprise" and MySQL is "toy", but given that >> MySQL dominates the highend over PostgreSQL the reality seems >> to be the exact opposite. > > My comments are based on my experience with the platforms, and that of > colleagues who've used them, and are my own personal assessment. YMMV. > > What evidence do you have that MySQL "dominates" the high end over PG? Look at the reference customers they have. And the discussion we had a month ago. MySQL power some of the highest volume web sites in the world. > The relational databases I've used professionally that have done well on > the high end have included Oracle DB, IBM DB2 and Red Brick. I use > Postgres in my personal development projects but that does not represent > any sort of "high end". MySQL has only annoyed me, even at the low end, > to the point where I simply will not consider it for anything serious. If you don't like it, then don't use it. But please distinguish between don't like and not good. > My major complaint with MySQL is its weakness in the implementation of > SQL. It's so far out of standard as to make it a real PITA to use. I > detest it. Oracle and MySQL are two of the worst when it comes to standard SQL compliance. Arne
From: Arne Vajhøj on 25 Nov 2009 20:29 Arved Sandstrom wrote: > To me a high-end database concentrates on features like data integrity, > scalability, reliability, solid procedural language support, > constraints, serious transactional support etc etc, all of which are > things that PostgreSQL has been working on since the beginning, and all > of which are MySQL after-thoughts. data integrity - InnoDB is from 1995 and has been part of MySQL since 2000 scalablity - largest public known MySQL customers are bigger than largest known PostgreSQL customers reliability - I have never seen any trustworthy analysis comparing reliability of databases procedural language support - InnoDB support several, MySQL only SQL constraints - same as under integrity transactions - same as under integrity Based on what yoy say it seems as if the distrust of MySQL is based on 3 things: - what MySQL were missing 10 years ago - the ability to use Tcl, Perl and Python for USP's/UDF's/triggers - lack of understanding of where MySQL is used Not convincing. > MySQL has storage engines out the ying-yang, and PostgreSQL has *one*. > This allows the Postgres developers to concentrate on quality, IMHO. That does not make any sense. It is not the same people that does MyISAM and InnODB. It is not even the same company. (not at least until EU approves Oravle buying SUN) > Ultimately it boils down to benchmarking your own application in > realistic field conditions. To me high-end also means that you've got a > person or people who qualify as DBAs - it's their #1 job to administer > the database of choice. I'll bet a lot of the benchmarks that highlight > MySQL over PostgreSQL are set up by folks who don't class as DBAs for > either, or just for MySQL. In any case I'm willing to bet that for a > "real" high-end app in realistic conditions that Postgres will win out. The CIO's of the big internet companies seems to bet differently. Arne
From: Lew on 25 Nov 2009 20:30
Lew wrote: >> The relational databases I've used professionally that have done well >> on the high end have included Oracle DB, IBM DB2 and Red Brick. I use >> Postgres in my personal development projects but that does not >> represent any sort of "high end". MySQL has only annoyed me, even at >> the low end, to the point where I simply will not consider it for >> anything serious. Arne Vajhøj wrote: > If you don't like it, then don't use it. I just said I wouldn't, didn't I? > But please distinguish between don't like and not good. Since my opinion is based on professional experience and utility in real-world projects, my "don't like" is equivalent to "not good". I didn't even mention the effed-up open-source licensing scheme alluded to elsethread. MySQL is not good. It rather sucks, actually. Lew: >> My major complaint with MySQL is its weakness in the implementation of >> SQL. It's so far out of standard as to make it a real PITA to use. I >> detest it. Arne: > Oracle and MySQL are two of the worst when it comes to standard > SQL compliance. And Postgres is one of the best. Even so, Oracle is miles better than MySQL for compliance. -- Lew |