> [sNip]
> >> In summary, you could be charging them for some very expensive courier
> >> services, if for which they don't pay then you won't deliver. =)
> >
> > Of course a competitor could purchase a copy or get it from a customer
> > and set up shop right away selling it too.
>
> Ah, so ev
I'd agree that this is probably laziness, or to be fairer, a ROI issue,
and again comes down to MySql having more mindshare.
I was mainly saying that the statement "Ahh just run different instances
for each customer." doesn't sit very well with me, and I doubt it would
for any ISP.
I can't see mu
I've asked them to put up PostgreSQL as an alternative, but they just
say
"too hard" and don't want to talk about it.
---(end of
broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
I think we may translate 'too hard' into
Hiya,
As I've mentioned before, we happilly run and offer PostgreSQL and
MySQL hosting to our customers. We also offer shell access which
simplifies things a little. I'm a little confused as to why people
find having auth control from pg_hba.conf a problem? We never use the
same passwords o
"Randal L. Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wrote:
>
> The biggest advantage MySQL still has over PostgreSQL is the same
> advantage Microsoft has over Unix - entrenchment, both in
> software and mindshare.
There is another thing too-- MySQL manages connection permissions entirely
within the RDBMS, w
On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 04:26, Randolf Richardson wrote:
...
> Keep in mind that (at least in Canada) contractual agreements are only
> valid when an aspect called "consideration" exists, which means that both
> parties benefit in some way (which must not be grossly unfair to one side).
>
>
Randolf Richardson Wrote:
> Although I view the GPL as well-intended to ensure that free software
> remains that way, I still find that the BSD License seems to be better
suited
> to the needs of businesses at this point in time.
>
As long as we are on the subject of licenses, here is my point
[sNip]
> If you read the GPL very carefully, you may find that it was crafted
> with considerable care and intent.
Oh, please don't misunderstand me, I wasn't implying that there was
anything wrong with such a loophole; after all, some loopholes are
intentional. =)
Although I v
Randolf Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [sNip]
>>> In summary, you could be charging them for some very expensive courier
>>> services, if for which they don't pay then you won't deliver. =)
>>
>> Of course a competitor could purchase a copy or get it from a customer
>> and set up shop
Randolf Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I _don't_ think what MySQL AB is doing with it is quite what was
>> intended, but the various side-effects that you see are, by and
>> large, quite intentional, even the ones that don't play into
>> scenarios of Richard Stallman as "Evil Overlord."
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 16:58, Randolf Richardson wrote:
> [sNip]
> >> In summary, you could be charging them for some very expensive courier
> >> services, if for which they don't pay then you won't deliver. =)
> >
> > Of course a competitor could purchase a copy or get it from a customer
> > and
Randolf Richardson, DevNet SysOp 29 wrote:
> [sNip]
> > For exsample, if I have a product that I built for a customer, I would
> > have to give it to them under the GPL. But I also have the choice to not
> > give it to them AT ALL. So, they pay me to get it, and the license is
> > the GPL. Their
>>>- Define a 32-bit field in MySQL. Insert a 64-bit number instead.
>>>Common sense tells you the value would be rejected. Yet MySQL happily
>>>folds it in and carries on its merry way.
>>
>> That's unacceptable. To me, this is a complete show-stopper because I
>> simply won't tolerate data los
[sNip]
> For exsample, if I have a product that I built for a customer, I would
> have to give it to them under the GPL. But I also have the choice to not
> give it to them AT ALL. So, they pay me to get it, and the license is
> the GPL. Their other choice, if they didn't pay me, would be to not
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The one problem with the signal approach is how long does the system
> wait before giving up on the app shutdown? Seems that should be
> something controllable by the admin, but without shutdown scripts, it
> isn't.
I believe 20 seconds is the standard
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alex Satrapa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mac OS X (desktop version, at least) there are no shutdown scripts.
> > All running applications are simply sent the "TERM" signal, then later
> > sent the "KILL" signal. Luckily enough, PostgreSQL seems to respond to
> > TERM by
Randolf Richardson, DevNet SysOp 29 wrote:
[sNip]
Do a shutdown -h on a live database machine with pg. It will gracefully
shut itself down.
Is that true for all OS flavors and is it dependent upon the DBA having
set up proper shutdown scripts?
[sNip]
When I tested this on PostgreSQL on Novel
>>Here's an interesting response from mysql.com sales. Frankly, I don't see
>>how using it on multiple internal servers violates the GPL?!?:
>
> You're talking to a sales droid, a suit, someone whose brain
> cells have died off because his tie was tied to tight.
[sNip]
That's an official
[sNip]
> "We have all the features they do! Nobody uses views or triggers!"
Which cave has that person been hiding in all these years? Views are a
very important part of SQL, and any SQL server that doesn't support Views is,
in my view (sorry, I couldn't resist), simply isn't suitable
Thanks for this information, it's very helpful. I've included some
additional comments to further demonstrate how a qualified business planner
may look at this...
>> I'm preparing to enter a discussion with management at my company
>> regarding going forward as either a MySql shop or a
[sNip]
>> Do a shutdown -h on a live database machine with pg. It will gracefully
>> shut itself down.
>
> Is that true for all OS flavors and is it dependent upon the DBA having
> set up proper shutdown scripts?
[sNip]
When I tested this on PostgreSQL on Novell NetWare 6 it shut down
gr
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here's an interesting response from mysql.com sales. Frankly, I don't see
>how using it on multiple internal servers violates the GPL?!?:
You're talking to a sales droid, a suit, someone whose brain
cells have died off because
Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is a timing issue. The PG has no way to notify the OS that
> it has finished exiting, so if it takes a long time to exit, the OS
> will ungracefully kill the DB process(es). Doesn't matter what DB (or
> any other application) you're running, yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Bartlett) writes:
> However, the reason the industry switched to relational databases
> was that they cared more that they had consistent data that worked
> with multiple applications that was able to guarantee data integrity
> (i.e. - support for views, constraints, and
> "sm" == scott marlowe writes:
>> will ungracefully kill the DB process(es). Doesn't matter what DB (or
>> any other application) you're running, you *can* lose data this way.
sm> While it is possible to lose a non-committed transaction, WAL prevents the
sm> database from becoming corrupt
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 12:54, Martin Marques wrote:
> I would like to know what Debian is going to do with PHP and MySQL.
You can raise the issue with Debian's mysql package maintainer
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and with the mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Oliver Elphick
"John Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing)
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:28, John Wells wrote:
> > Yes, I know you've seen the above subject before, so pl
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > "SD" == Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SD> Do a shutdown -h on a live database machine with pg. It will
> SD> gracefully shut itself down.
>
>
> I think it is a timing issue. The PG has no way to notify the OS that
> it has fi
On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 08:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> that a shutdown process that isn't tested can cause problems even with
> commercial databases. And as someone who has to put up with MySQL on
Then that's a piss-poor commercial DBMS, since that means that the
DB would be corrupt if th
Oliver Elphick wrote:
But as far as Debian is concerned, paragraph 1 applies:
1. Free use for those who are 100% GPL
If your application is licensed under GPL or compatible OSI license
approved by MySQL AB, you are free and welcome to ship any GPL software
of MySQL AB with your application. By "
On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 01:42 AM, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of my friend lost data with mysql yesterday.. The machine was
taken down for disk upgrade and mysql apperantly did not commit the
last insert.. OK he was using myisam but still..:-)
It sounds lik
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:28, John Wells wrote:
> Yes, I know you've seen the above subject before, so please be gentle with
> the flamethrowers.
>
> I'm preparing to enter a discussion with management at my company
> regarding going forward as either a MySql shop or a Postgresql shop.
>
> It's my opin
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:33:39PM +0200, Harald Fuchs wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > BTW, MySQL versions without transactions are unusable for 365/7/24
> > systems, because you cannot make backup of DB without transaction or
>
It's my opinion that we should be using PG, because of the full ACID
support, and the license involved. A consultant my company hired before
bringing me in is pushing hard for MySql, citing speed and community
support, as well as ACID support.
Does the consultant push "speed AND ACID" or "speed OR
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 16:23, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Here is the simple thing about MySQL licensing. It is GPL. If you
> modify the mySQL source or you link a proprietary app to mySQL without
> a commercial license. You must distrubute your changes and or
> application as GPL or GPL compatibil
Here's an interesting response from mysql.com sales. Frankly, I don't see
how using it on multiple internal servers violates the GPL?!?:
Hi John,
Thank you for your interest in MySQL. My answers below.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:45:36AM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:28:00 -0400 (EDT) John Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It's my opinion that we should be using PG, because of the full ACID
> > support, and the license involved. A consultant my company hired before
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of my friend lost data with mysql yesterday.. The machine was taken down for
disk upgrade and mysql apperantly did not commit the last insert.. OK he was
using myisam but still..:-)
It sounds like that is more a problem with improper operating protocols
than with t
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 07:03:19PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Would PG know enough to do a commit regardless of how the database was
> shut down? A second question is whether doing a commit is what the user
> or application would always want to have happen, as it could result in a
> hal
Yes, I know you've seen the above subject before, so please be gentle with
the flamethrowers.
I'm preparing to enter a discussion with management at my company
regarding going forward as either a MySql shop or a Postgresql shop.
It's my opinion that we should be using PG, because of the full ACID
Sorry for the repost again. I emailed the Admin asking to cancel it (I
originally posted from a non-subscribed address), but perhaps he missed
it.
John
John Wells said:
> Yes, I know you've seen the above subject before, so please be gentle with
> the flamethrowers.
>
> I'm preparing to enter a
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:28:00 -0400 (EDT) John Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's my opinion that we should be using PG, because of the full ACID
> support, and the license involved. A consultant my company hired before
> bringing me in is pushing hard for MySql, citing speed and community
> s
> "Shridhar" == Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Shridhar> Yeah.. like inserting a biiig number in integer field in a transaction
Shridhar> without error and not getting it back after commit.. or accepting
Shridhar> '00-00-00 00:00:00' as a valid datetime stamp.. something like
Yes, I know you've seen the above subject before, so please be gentle with
the flamethrowers.
I'm preparing to enter a discussion with management at my company
regarding going forward as either a MySql shop or a Postgresql shop.
It's my opinion that we should be using PG, because of the full ACID
Oliver Elphick said:
> Unless they actually attach extra conditions to the GPL (i.e. "This
> product is licensed under GPL with the following extra conditions...")
> this is rubbish. The GPL allows you to do what you like with the
> software internally; its restrictions only apply to further
> dis
Hi John,
I've been thinking about this for sometime, since a couple of my
associates are looking to build a commercial app based around JDBC. The
difficulty came when we looked at redistributing a MySQL JDBC driver
.jar with the application. From what I can tell, since you distribute
the JDB
Richard Welty wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:28:00 -0400 (EDT) John Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's my opinion that we should be using PG, because of the full ACID
support, and the license involved. A consultant my company hired before
bringing me in is pushing hard for MySql, citing speed
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 16:28, John Wells wrote:
> Yes, I know you've seen the above subject before, so please be gentle with
> the flamethrowers.
>
> I'm preparing to enter a discussion with management at my company
> regarding going forward as either a MySql shop or a Postgresql shop.
>
> It's my
48 matches
Mail list logo
