Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

"Volker Hetzer" <volker.hetzer_at_ieee.org> wrote in message news:<c7o8i3$3bk$1_at_nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com>...

> > > > > That's not true.
>
> > > > Yes it is.
>
> > > What was the value of this reply?
> >
> > What was the value of yours? Or this latest one?
> A question is not an answer.

And what was your reply?

> > Yes, you have the right to be overcharged for work that may or may not
> > not suit your needs by only _one_ vendor, and no right to go elsewhere
> > when they fail, ignore you outright, stop supporting your application
> > or vanish from the face of the earth. Have you actually read your
> > contract or software licence?
> Of course. See the end of this posting.

> > It only protects the vendor, not you.
> I've read the licence and done even more: I've used the software and tested the contract.

Realy, care to quote the part of the Contract that Gaurantees you any rights?

Instead, what you will find is that the contracts insists that the Software is not gauranteed to be usefull for any particilar purpose, and that they deny all responsibilitty for it to the extent possible by law.

By "tested the contarct" what you mean is you agreed to pay them completely on their terms and where satisified with the results they chose to give you.

Have you tested alternatives?

> > > > > The right to modify is a red herring.
> > > >
> > > > Not if your application and the permenancy of your data is important.
>
> > > You didn't read my posting, right?
> >
> > You are one funny guy. Really. I'll bet you're the first guy in usenet
> > to ever ask this question rhetoricly.

> Nice way of avoiding an answer.

Are so so stupid that you actually expect a serious answer that was obviously a
hostile attempt to insult by way of a rhetorical question?

> > > I don't *want* to create my own development
> > > team competing with the original one. I don't want to merge my change back
> > > into their code with every new release! I don't want to develop code and
> > > then have them decide whether they condescend to incorporate it or not! I
> > > want the authors of the software to do the coding based on what I'm willing
> > > to pay for!
> >
> > You are dependent on their licence

> I'm dependent on the author's licence regardless of which database I use.

Yes, which is why you should choose one that give you a perpetual right to the source code, otherwise you are locked into a dependancy that may prove fatal to your application.

> It's just that some licences give me the illusion of being able to do
> something while mainly giving me in reality the ability to shoot myself in
> the foot or paying someone else to shoot me in the foot.

Unsubstantiated bunk, if you have the source code, it is not magic to fix it, or extend it, just normal progamming. Simple calling something an illusion does not explain why you condsider it impossible to actually change a program. Perhaps you should consider a different line of work.

> > because you built your own
> > application on top of a platform for which you have no source code,

> Same question: Did you read what I wrote?

A better question: What kind of an idiot are you that, in the face of good sense, the best you can do is attemp insulting, evasive rehetoric?

> I don't care about the source code, I care about product and support
> quality. And, since I am not the developer of the software, nor is anyone else,
> apart from *the* developers,

As I said, my comments where ment *FOR DEVELOPERS* that is those who are developing *NEW* appliciations, and my advice is simple enough, despite your contortions: If your application is important to you, do not engineer a dependency on code you do not have access to.

> anyone else is going to make a worse job than
> them. So, I get the best support when I'm paying them and no one else.

More unsubstantiated bunk, first of all, in many cases you can hire the original developers, regardless of your right to the source code, secondly, by hiring the "Copyright Holders" you *ARE NOT NECESSARLIY HIRING THE DEVELEORS*, who may not even be with the company anymore, in fact you are often hiring some peon who they scooped of the consulting market 5 minutes before sending him to your office as an certified solutions prodiver or whatever idiotic buzzword whey have for their unskilled labour.

And finaly, it is a falalcy to say that someone will do a worse job simply because they are not the original developer.  

> > and no right to modify, you then also have no leverage with the vendor
> > of the orginal software.
> >
> > You have no rights at all, wether or not you are willing to pay.
> Read oracles licence some time. There it says very clearly what
> you get if you enter a support agreement.

But it stops short of guaranting that your apllication will actualy work, or that your existing version of the software will be supported.

In anycase, I am not arguing agianst using Oracle, as I said, if Oracle suits your needs and you think it's worth the money, use it, however, my advice is that if you do develop an application, write your code in such a way that you do not depend on Oracle, but can easily switch it over the the greatest extent possible.

I have no idea why you are insisting on jumping up and down like this is crazy talk, the only plausible theory is that you get some kind of thrill out of embarassing yourself.

> > I dunno, because you're culturaly issolated and have a poor
> > imagination?

> No, it's because the phrase "elegant coding" is just as empty.
> Or as the phrase "the one true god" uttered by people of
> different religions.

This is just stupid, elegnt coding is hardly as unatainable an ideal as you seem to be conviced, in fact in this specific case it's a simply matter of using a standard wrapper function throughtout your aplication to access your data rather than using proprietary bindings throughout your application, if your application is sufficently complicated, perhaps a data abstaction object might be usefull for this function, perhaps not, if you use any non standard features of your database server, then write some additional functions as wrappers for these. It is anything but rocket science.

> > > For db computing, reducing server load is the important thing.
> >
> > No, it is not, in most cases CPU is not the most limited resource.
> >
> > > Interoperability
> > > typically means primitive, network/db intensive sql.
> Yup. Which, in a well configured db is CPU load because
> caching, indexing and db specific sql takes care of the i/o load.

What about the human and financial load? As in the load on the DBA, inhouse developers, consulting budgets and application support staff?

> Nevertheless, I concede, it *is* possible to have such a
> horribly configured system that i/o load becomes an issue. It's also
> possible to have a database that permits so few actions
> that the dba can't do anything about a badly written app.
> fortunately, oracle is different.
 

> > No, interoperability means abilty to integrate applications in a
> > heterogeneus environment. It means standards and flexibilty.
> So? What's more "standardised" about mysql's socket interface than
> about oracles OCI or ESQL?

Are you having a nightmare in which we are dicussing the various merits of MySQL versus Oracle? Please follow your own advice and read this thread again so that you might figure out what is it we are actually taking about.

> > > > > If it's important it must not matter whether one tries to
> > > > > access the data from a local or remote machine.
>
> > > > Interesting that you believe that this can not be accomblished with
> > > > network security.
>
> > > Yes. Now you figure out why.
> >
> > Because you don't know what you are doing maybe?

> Wrong. Try again.

The more you talk, the clearer it is how right I was.

> > Oh wait, you don't
> > need to, after all, you have decided to pay a vendor to know for you,
> > I remember now.
> Right. The alternative is not paying anyone and trying to figuring out the
> source code on my own, right? Or paying someone else who starts
> from scratch too?

More straw men and red herrings. If you are a Developer, which is who my comments are addressed to, it is your responsiblilty to your users and clients to know how your application works and to be able to support it without allowing some third party to hold them hostage.

> > > > Yes, a securely configured database, protected by a secure network,
> > > > the later being far more important!
>
> > > A network will alway have holes, simply because legitimate users
> > > have to get through and legitimacy can change while they are in.
> > > Therefore you protect the data where they are. In the db.
> >
> > If your network has holes, then your database is insecure, because I
> > can get right at the filesystem blobs, the reverse however is not
> > true.

> Care to elaborate? An insecure network does not mean that someone can
> log on to the database server from anywhere but the console screwed onto
> it. And securing the listener (in case of oracle) is part of the database
> configuration.

If the above is true, that someone can only access any of the devices on your Database server via the local console, then your network *IS* secure (perhaps too secure, but that's beside the point), However, if your network is not secure, then that is not true, and your Database security is a dangerous false sence of security.

This is what I'm trying to say, that network security comes first, because Database security can only depend on it, not being able to actualy protect devices, which is the burden on the OS and networking environment.

Once again, It must be assumed that your consternations to contend this point are some weird form of self-flagilation.

> > > Right. You show me how do convert VENUS chip designs into Synopsys
> > > without going into a museom for the original hardware and getting all
> > > the versions in between.
> >
> > What does this have to do with "Self Contained, Self Describing, Human
> > Readable" files that can be read on any system past or present?

> It has to do with permanency. Try to read what you quote.

What does reading text files have to do with Chip design? I can read text files I created on my Apple ][, and no, I do not have the orginal hardware (well maybe my mom does somewhere in her basement).

Try to avoid making an ass of yourself with further pretentions.

> > tell me, how much do you know about my
> > experience,

> What your arguments tell me.

Which ones? That abstracting access to suspect dependencies is a good idea? That database security is secondary to network security? That one should keep archives in a format that is likely to be readable forever?

All these things come from experience, your attempt to question my experience, only show that you are unable to formalute an actual argument, so you try and discredit the arguer instead of the argument.

> > and why do you feel that talking about _me_ is a response
> > to my argument?

> Because your argument isn't backed by anything. Give me some
> substance and we can talk about it.

Oh please, my argument has been presented well enough, attacking me just shows you can not defend your own, that is if you actually had one.

If my argument was not backed up by anything it would easy enough to refute it without attempting to insult me, you started with the insulting precicely because you could not defeat my arguments.

But please, don't take this as discourgement from continuing to try your silly insults, I don't mind being given the oportunity to embarrass you personaly as well as refute your arguments, but it is hard for me to understand why would chose to subject yourself to such, as one would think it would more pleasent for you to simple lose a respectfull debate, rather than lose a debate and a battle of wit at the same time.

> All I've hear so far is the
> usual open source rethoric about me or someone else being able
> to magically support a product in a few days or weeks after the
> original developers have abandoned it, or me.

These must be voices in your head that you are hearing. Since my argument have been quite clear and even sumerized several times.

Your arguments amount to the metaphysical belief that only the copyright holders of your favourite proporiety software know how to program, that the very concept of good programming is an illussion, and therfore the only way forward is to make yourself both tehnicaly and legaly dependent on them as much as possible.

> > > > If you have the source code, you are the developer,
>
> > > Wrong. I am the user, t.
> >
> > Oh, well then I guess we have nothing further to discuss, my comments
> > here where meant for actual developers.

> So, oracle people should further develop oracle and mysql people
> mysql. Did I get this right?

No, that's not right, that's not even wrong.

(with applogies to Wolfgang Pauli)

Application developers should avoid locking themselves in to external dependencies, either by not using products to which they have no right to the source code, or abstracting access when they do use such products. Simple.

And having right to the source code does not mean that the program is 'open source,' as you can purchace such a right for propretary code, as is common for libraries.

Of course, when the program _is_ open source, you are guaranteed that right.

> > You have no such right, ever, the only right you _can_ have is the
> > right to modify it yourself or contract someone to do it. Please read
> > your licence.

> "Assistance with my SRs 24 hours per day, 7days a week". Practically I
> usually get two or three guys working on a typical SR of mine, depending on
> how log it takes. Without a contract I'd get a 'buzz off, I'm doing my exams > this month'.

"Assitance" only means that they will provide someone whose time they can bill you for, not that anything will be accomplished. And you discredit yourself by attemping the fallacy that the only way to have access to an applications source code is to hire some one who is doing exams. Many large companies, and profesional develpoers provide source licences and/or support open source products, including the largest computer company in the world, IBM.

Cheers. Received on Tue May 11 2004 - 03:58:20 CDT