What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Sarah Tanembaum, May 4, 2004.

  1. Sarah Tanembaum

    Quirk Guest

    Sorry if you thought I was refering to you specificly, rather I was
    lamenting about the general quality of the responses in this thread,
    like those of Volker, moronic zealot extraordinaire, a man so stupid,
    that when I suggested he didn't know what a fallacy was, he thought I
    was critisising his _english_ instead of his knowledge of logic and
    the standards of debate.

    However, there is clear zealotry in your post, for example:

    You said: "It's with freeware that you need a STACK of wrappers to
    protect you from sudden underlying code changes! Not with commercial
    software!"

    See: no other reasoning is given why underlying code may suddenly
    change other than in one case it is _free_, in the other case it is
    _commercial_. This is not a reasoned argument, but rather the faith of
    a zealot.

    Since neither freeness nor commercialness has a direct impact on code
    stability, but rather the release management practices of the
    development group has.

    There are badly managed free software projects, and badly managed
    nonfree ones, your argument is therefore a fallacy, although your
    english, like Volker's is great!
    Please, use any language you like, you are quite welcome if my post
    has given you a greater since of liberty.
    When I say things like "the readers can make up their own minds, as
    they should in any case" and "these are suggestions" (both present in
    the post you are responding too) what makes you think I am defining
    "world truths?"
    Oh please, I have provided many clear aruments throughout this thread,
    in my last message I even posted pseudocode, how much clearer do you
    want?
    You know nothing about my character or world view. Amateur effort is
    amateur effort, on it's own it is neither old nor new. None of the
    ideas I have suggested are particularily new. The existince of a large
    body of free software is fairly new, however the practice of acquiring
    source licences for critical dependencies is not, and serves more or
    less the same function. Abstraction is not new, good archiving
    techniques are not new. A developer who did not understand these
    techniques was an amateur in 1976, just as much as today.
    I'm sorry the barbs you endured in your primary school still hurt you
    so much, perhaps therapy can help.
    Let's see, I am suggestion abstracting dependencies, getting source
    code when you can and keeping your archives human readable.

    What sort of disasters can come of this? The worst that can be said is
    that, if implemented poorly, these suggestions may cause performance
    degradation, hardly Godzilla crushing Tokyo.

    However, It is quite easy to imagine disasters as a consequence of not
    following these suggestions; customers lost by not being able to
    support their database platform, production applications obsoleted by
    obsoleted debendencies, unusable archives and lost permenant records.
    Which market is that? The market for good applications? I agree that
    is too small and that too many firms are screwed by bad developers and
    protectionist suppliers, however I assure you the marker for
    developers who understand good, well designed, open systems is doing
    quite well, and growing.
    Hey, I only want to improve your future with my advise! Here, I'll
    give you another tip:

    A "binding" is a term used to describe a native function (or method)
    that provides access to an external dependency.

    For instance, 'MySQL', the database server, is a dependency, in PHP,
    the function mysql_query is called a binding. 'libcurl', the URL
    handling library, is a dependency, the PHP function 'curl_exec', is a
    binding.

    An 'API' ("application programming interface") is the interface
    provided by the dependency itself for external access, frequently for
    C, the 'binding' is your platform's _native_ function or method that
    provides access to this API, not the API itself.

    Each of these terms, 'Dependency', 'Binding' and 'API' have distinct
    meanings, and now, after a 30 year career, you can finaly understand
    them!

    I hope this helps.

    Regards,
    Dmytri.
     
    Quirk, May 24, 2004
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sarah Tanembaum

    Dusan Bolek Guest

    Sorry for interrupting your flame, but I must step in. This statement
    is simply not true. In fact a problematic release management is
    probably the biggest single problem of free software projects in
    general. Even a big projects like Squid, Apache or even Linux itself
    have serious problems in this area and the behaviour of smaller ones
    is just unacceptable from a point of view of real production
    implementations.
    Typical for this is a lack of backward compatibility, a huge (and
    often unnecessary) changes in config files (thus the need to rewrite
    all configs after upgrade) and releasing unfinished code (too many
    hacks used, no documentation ...).
    I'm using a lot of both commercial and free softs, but I must admit
    that these problems are much more frequent on the free ones.
     
    Dusan Bolek, May 24, 2004
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. FWIW, although I have no first-hand experience to support this,
    everything I've read recently says that:
    (a) MySQL *used to be* much faster than PostgreSQL, but
    (b) PostgreSQL is now just as fast (a bit faster in some areas, a bit
    slower in others)

    I'll refrain from entering any other part of this 'discussion'. Just
    know that (again, from what I've been told) speed is *not* a reason to
    choose MySQL over PGSQL. (And personally, in a choice only between
    these two, there seem *to me* to be quite a sufficient number of
    reasons to choose PGSQL over MySQL.)
     
    Gavin Kistner, May 24, 2004
    #83
  4. Last time I looked my name was Niall, but then its only in my email address
    and signature and display name so I guess I can forgive you for missing it
    :( I'm afraid you are probably correct about the liklihood of a fruitful
    discussion since you seem to have managed to get heated with every single
    one of the posters that I am aware of who regularly post well thought out
    informative posts.

    Never the less

    If true, and there is some truth to this, I don't see what failing to get
    the legalities right has to do with having access to the source. This is
    about license management and control of procurement.
    I'd be careful how you define 'this newsgroup' - it may well be true in
    alt.php.sql - it is extremely unlikely to be true in
    comp.databases.oracle.server, and I'd guess the sybase group would be
    different as well.
    No software project, even if you have access to all the source is 'free' of
    dependencies, at the very least you are dependent on skill and expertise -
    most probably on a whole host of things. FWIW most commercial projects that
    fail, fail not because the software is commercial, but because the project
    is poorly scoped, poorly managed, inadequately supported by management or
    all if the above.
    Ah a straw man argument. Seen them before.

    It almost always does mean you can't take advantage of the platform.

    I have 2 databases, both run on clustered hardware, db 1 can resume a select
    statement that was issued on a failed node on a second node of the cluster,
    db 2 can't. How, precisely, do you 'abstract' this difference in capability
    whilst preserving the ability of db 1 to handle failed nodes more gracefully
    than db 2. How, precisely, do you abstract differences in datatype between
    two db platforms without performing excessive casting..
    And there I was thinking that a proper paper filing system worked just fine
    for the purpose for which it was designed.

    The open-paperless office I love the vision.

    You snipped what i was referring to, perhaps you misunderstod

    referring to
    I said
    Not at all. You claimed that if I have access to the source, as I do with
    Linux 1.5, then I can always find a way forward without external
    dependencies. The only route to what you claim as an advantage would seem to
    be rewriting the code in-house, or being dependent on external agencies with
    whom I don't have a legal relationship (you don't seem to like legal
    relationships much) . Perhaps you suggest that we review and understand in
    house the change log between kernel 1.5 and kernel 2.4 before applying 2.4,
    or is there a support contract available that will backport fixes from later
    linux to earlier linux. Oracle can and do backport fixes.

    Oh and by the way I am perfectly free under my licence to install new
    versions of the Oracle software for no change in cost and with the same
    support.
     
    Niall Litchfield, May 24, 2004
    #84
  5. Niall,
    Exactly !!
    We are both correct - both propositions have merit and neither should be
    taken as the justification for believing one way is somehow "right" and the
    other "wrong" in every case without exception. The important point is to
    define the problem space and fit the solution to it.
    In spite of the highly charged language this thread has suffered from,
    this is the nub of what Quirk - and, latterly, I - have been trying to get
    across.
    It is not a matter of anyone claiming the high moral ground on some point
    of principle. It is not a matter of one side defeating the other on points.
    It is just a matter of accepting that there is more than one way to ensure a
    customer gets best value for the budget they have available and the task
    they need performed.
    Quirk and I both agree that Oracle, for example, is a fine product with
    many important features. We both, however, understand that it is not the
    only tool in our toolbox and it has drawbacks as well as advantages.
    The circumstances help define the problem space and we propose that
    circumstances differ from one project to the next. Your mileage may vary.
    Kind regards,
    Doug Hutcheson
     
    Doug Hutcheson, May 24, 2004
    #85
  6. Sarah Tanembaum

    Quirk Guest

    Sorry Niall.
    I guess the new free software movement is such a big threat to the
    status quo that it makes them nervous and belligerent to even discuss
    it, like many protectionists, they are worried their island is about
    to be stormed by barbarians. Well, I guess they are right. The
    consumer, however, will benifit. And those amongst you with real
    skills will also get on just fine.
    Because with closed source software, 'failng to get the legalities
    right' is a financial mater, in many cases companies *chose* not to
    get them right, they know perfectly well they are overdeployed.
    Sometimes the choice is made by the principals, sometimes the choice
    is made further downstream; in the IT department who can't be bothered
    going through the procurement cycle again and again and justifing
    needing any more licences to the bean counters. They simply install
    the software on an another server, or for another user. In larger
    organisations the company tends to drift into overdeployment, in
    smaller ones, overdeployment or outright piracy is frequently the
    starting point.

    Free software can not be overdeployed, which is one reason why linux
    and bsd boxes are popping up in datacentres around the world, they
    started with Webservers, LAN Servers and Firewalls (esp for NAT), then
    Mail, now the Database, later the Desktop.
    Sorry, I meant free of exclusive external dependencies: fixed
    dependencies on outside organisations, not just software dependencies.
    No, perhaps a nonsequetor, but not a straw man, a 'straw man'
    is refuting a weaker argument instead of the argument you have been
    given, the passage you quote is an extension of my own argument 'free
    is better than stolen', it is not a weakening of yours. You may
    consider my extenstion irrelevant (I do not) but it is not a straw
    man.
    The passage you quote talks about issolating your code to one place:
    abstracting access from your application, which is a good coding
    practice for reasons I explain, as quoted above, I am not recomending
    you try and abstract //the difference between two databases// just
    that you issolate the code: abstract the data access for the rest of
    your application.

    When and if you need to migrate your application to another DB,
    presumably you have chosen db 2 based on your requirements and have
    already decided on a solution to whatever problem you are facing,
    having your code issolated means fewer code changes. Again, this holds
    true for migration, it also holds true for simply making better use
    (i.e. new features) of the platform you are currently using.
    With out _exclusive_ dependencies on third parties, sorry for the
    confusion: without paying for a new licence.
    You see, *this* is an example of a straw man argument: that I don't
    like legal relationships, what I don't like is _bad_ legal
    relationships that lock me and my application in to a sole source
    situation and other specific restrictions, like limiting the
    deployment of my own application to the licenced limits of the
    dependency. I have no problem with good legal relationships, like
    support contracts, employment contracts, service contracts. All yummy,
    with a decent termination clause of course, and my perpetual right to
    the source when possible.
    As long as you agree to pay whatever Oracle charges for support, a
    price fixed not by competition, as it would be if you had source and
    could contract who ever you liked, but by David Ricardo's concept of
    Economic Rent, meaning that in the long run the price will rise to
    what it would cost you to migrate away from Oracle. Interestingly, in
    this way users of closed source software do marginaly benefit from
    free software, since it lowers this theoretical rent. However, it is
    clear that Oracle can benefit from ignorance of free options for quite
    a while yet.

    Also, your licence likely limits the number of users and severs you
    are allowed to deploy, so therefor Oracle's licence has a cost push
    effect on your own application as well, potentially killing your own
    competitiveness, or forcing you into overdeployment.

    Regards,
    Dmytri.
     
    Quirk, May 25, 2004
    #86
  7. Sarah Tanembaum

    Quirk Guest

    Dusan, phrases like 'simply not true' and 'in fact' must be based on
    reasoning, your reasoning is limted to your anecdotal evidence from
    your personal experience, which I do not deny, my experience however,
    is the exact opposite.

    In anycase, neither of us can state that our experience represents the
    only possible case. i.e. My neighbour is noisy, ben is your neighbour,
    therefore ben is noisy; This is a fallacaious argument.

    You must explain *why* what you claim 'simply is true' or is a fact.
    What are the forces at work that make it so?

    The only _fact_ is that projects, free or nonfree, with good release
    management are less likely to cause upgrade difficulties than
    projects, free or nonfree, with poor ones, and that this differs on a
    project by project basis, and also is not static, but rather also
    changes with the maturity and popularity of the project.

    So, back to our specific case, MySQL and PostgreSQL, versus Oracle,
    Sybase, and MS SQL. As far as I know all of these have a good realease
    record, the last, of course, suffers from the bad release record of
    it's host OS.

    Noon's claim, as I explained, is therefore a fallacy.

    Regards,
    Dmytri.
     
    Quirk, May 25, 2004
    #87
  8. Sarah Tanembaum

    Jim Kennedy Guest

    Instead of abstracting there are much better ways. Abstrating somethings
    are good. Put the business rules and referential integrity in the DB not in
    some middle tier or front end. (even access the db via stored procs) Then
    you can swap out the front end , middle tiers much easier and be assured
    that you do not have to rewrite and validate the business rules all over
    again. (not tied to one technology). It is much more likely you are going
    to swap out some middle tier or front end or have multiple programs
    accessing the db. If you give access to the db only through stored procs
    and put the business logic close to the database (in it) then it is just an
    API for storing, retrieving your data. It is a way to encapsulate that
    functionality. If you write a C++ or Java or other OOPL functionality the
    concept (among others) is to encapsulate the functionality in that class.
    The class does all the checking and data validation etc. Think of the db in
    the same way with respect to data and its relationship to itself. (RI,
    business rules) You can still have edit checks in a GUI, but the ultimate
    RI and business rules should reside in the database. But if one is only a
    programmer this is a difficult concept to agree with and understand.
    BS. If you are so niave to believe that Oracle doesn't think it has
    competition they you are from another galaxy. I assure you that they know
    there are other companies out there and they price accordingly. This
    includes support. I've been at many companies where there was competition
    between Oracle and others and they were fully aware and concerned that they
    would get the business. They priced accordingly.
    Jim
     
    Jim Kennedy, May 25, 2004
    #88
  9. Sarah Tanembaum

    Galen Boyer Guest

    I fail to understand how this has anything to do with whether you
    use open-source, free or commercial software, but it seems to be
    the main impetus to your arguments.
     
    Galen Boyer, May 25, 2004
    #89
  10. Sarah Tanembaum

    Quirk Guest

    When and if you need to migrate your application to another DB,
    Seems contradictory, I assume you mean there are _somtimes_ better
    ways in the first sentence. In which case, I agree, sometimes there
    are.
    Good explanation.

    There are still some aspects of abstraction that are relevent here:
    Since you can use standard SQL to do what you describe, I would
    recommend in this case that you isolate your nonstandard sql to as few
    stored procedures as possible to facilitate potential migration down
    the road.

    Also, putting the execute binding into a wrapper function, as I've
    described, is still a good idea.

    And, in the case of permenant, long term, or shared data, creating
    archives in a self contained, self describing, human readable format,
    is also good.

    Stored procedures are a really good approach when data security is
    extreamly precise, i.e. record and field level security. And also, the
    performance advantages make them almost essential for huge table
    joins.

    It really depends on whether the database is a replacable backend to
    highly invested-in application or the application is a replacable
    interface to a highly invested-in database.

    The former is generaly model good for an application which you provide
    to a client, who may have a different DB, The later is sometimes a
    good approach for an inhouse application in a large operations center,
    with a good DBA.

    The number of applications that look more like the former far
    outnumber the ones that look most like the latter. Only a tiny
    percentage of organisations have a DBA of anykind, let alone a good
    one.

    If you are a bank, you should follow Jim's advice, however you
    probably already know it, since you have a good DBA to keep the pesky
    programmers under control.

    If you are more like a book store, or a photo shop, or an HVAC repair
    firm, or a small Non Profit, you should probably follow mine.
    Why the belligerence?
    They do not have any competition in regards to selling _Oracle_.
    Price is determined when the flow of product ENCOUNTERS the flow of
    money.

    The competetion you speak of is only at ONE ENCOUNTER, the orginal
    decision to buy Oracle vs a competitor, so yes, at this encounter, the
    price ceiling is determined by competion and to a certain extent,
    costs.

    Once you have become an Oracle customer, there is no further
    competetion unless you chose to migrate away from Oracle, so for EVERY
    FURTHER ENCOUNTER the price is determined by what it would cost to
    migrate away from Oracle.

    In economic theory, I am applying what is known as Economic Rent,
    originaly forumulated by David Ricardo.

    Since Oracle and their competitors all know this, they all have the
    same pricing strategy.

    Only vendors of free software face different factors.

    With vendors of free software, the potential for competetion exists AT
    EVERY ENCOUNTER, and therefore price is more closely driven by cost.

    This of course doesn't not mean that you should never use nonfree
    software, as sometimes there is no alternative for your needs, so the
    price must be born and worked into your own business model, and
    therefore passed on to your own customers.

    But since your business realty may be more elastic than Oracle's, this
    "cost push" can force you into a situation of overdeployment or
    piracy, in which case your access to updates and support is
    questionable.

    In closing, Jim, if you have an inovated new price theory, please
    explain it here, perhaps you can take my understanding beyond Ricardo,
    Keynes and their descendents, I'm all ears. But calling what I said
    BS, and me naive for saying it is just, as I said, Belligerent, or in
    technical terms: 'Following in the footsteps of Volker.'

    Regards,
    Dmytri.
     
    Quirk, May 25, 2004
    #90
  11. Sarah Tanembaum

    Quirk Guest

    I made four suggestions in my original post in this thread. One
    regarding source, one regarding abstraction, one regarding human
    readable archives, and one regarding network security trumping
    database security.

    Each is complimentary to the others, but not dependant on any of the
    others.

    My main impetus is the preservation of the application and it's data.
     
    Quirk, May 26, 2004
    #91
  12. Sarah Tanembaum

    Thufir Guest

    ]
    [...]

    That's just total nonsense. MySQL is under the GPL, you can use it for whatever you like. If you want to distribute it, then get a license from Oracle. You're confused about the dual licensing.


    -Thufir
     
    Thufir, Mar 13, 2012
    #92
  13. Sarah Tanembaum

    thufir Guest



    "Q4: What is Oracle’s dual license model for MySQL software?
    A: Oracle makes its MySQL database server and MySQL Client Libraries
    available under both the GPL and a commercial license. As a result,
    developers who use or distribute open source applications under the GPL
    can use the GPL-licensed MySQL software, and OEMs, ISVs and VARs that do
    not want to combine or distribute the MySQL software with their own
    commercial software under a GPL license can purchase a commercial
    license. "

    http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/#4


    Pardon, I stand corrected. You can hand out CD's on the corner, provided
    you also provide the source code. As, err, with any other GPL'ed
    software. Only if you don't want to distribute the code would you need a
    license from Oracle.


    -Thufir
     
    thufir, Mar 17, 2012
    #93
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.