faq
code
awards
privacy
slashNET
older stuff
rob's page
preferences
andover.net
submit story
advertising
supporters
past polls
topics
about
jobs
hof
|
| 'Interbase Open Source Release' | Login/Create an Account | 210 comments |
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.
|
RMS (Score:2, Funny)
by Ex Machina
(xm@GeekMafia.dynip.DELETE.meat.DELETE.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @11:42AM EDT
(#4)
(User #10710 Info)
http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/~xm/
|
RMS' eyeball is going to explode if any other companies release an Open Source program (under a QT-ish or MPL-ish) license and call it Free Software.
/* My comments do not represent my views. */ |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:RMS (Score:1)
by 11223 on Tuesday July 25, @11:44AM EDT
(#5)
(User #201561 Info)
|
| MPL is basically BSD. QT is what he has a problem with, not MPL.
(Damn. I'm replying to you again. Stop that, will you?)
- Moderators: You should be browsing at -1, (Newest|Oldest) First, Nested, not +2, Highest Scores, Threaded
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:RMS (Score:1)
by baywulf on Tuesday July 25, @11:48AM EDT
(#12)
(User #214371 Info)
|
MPL is basically BSD. QT is what he has a problem with, not MPL.
I don't think RMS has too much of an issue with the QPL from the email posts I have seen of him. This is given that the QPL is closer to the GPL than the LGPL is (to the GPL) and I think RMS prefers the GPL to the GPL.
I think I just put too many TLAs in this posting ;-)
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:RMS (Score:2)
by MindStalker
(johnlar@tfn.spam.net)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:01PM EDT
(#29)
(User #22827 Info)
http://www.how-toresource.com/index.html
|
I think RMS prefers the GPL to the GPL.
I think I just put too many TLAs in this posting ;-) Yea especially when you f one up, are you trying to say "prefers the GPL to the LGPL," or "prefers the LGPL to the GPL"???
~A nerd is someone whose life revolved around computers and technology.
A geek is someone whose life revolves around computers and technology,
and likes it |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
I do not believe this is correct. (Score:1)
by Arker on Tuesday July 25, @02:12PM EDT
(#119)
(User #91948 Info)
|
MPL is basically BSD. QT is what he has a problem with, not MPL.
Hrmm... I don't think this is correct. BSD code can be used in a GPL program. MPL code cannot. (Galeon anyone?) This seems like a HUGE difference from a Free Software perspective.
The message I got from what RMS has written about QT is not that he likes it in any sense, but only that he doesn't believe there is any legal problem with KDE using it in their GPLd code.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:RMS (Score:2)
by hedgehog_uk on Tuesday July 25, @04:31PM EDT
(#158)
(User #66749 Info)
http://blackleatherjacket.com
|
According to LWN, RMS was trying to persuade Debian that the QT licence was OK. They disagreed with him, so it's official: Debian is more anal about licenses than RMS!
HH
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
She's just dressing, goodbye windows, tired starlings. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:RMS (Score:1)
by Vagatech
(root@127.0.0.1)
on Tuesday July 25, @02:20PM EDT
(#124)
(User #193069 Info)
|
Quicktime? Never! We must have an open format!
ahhh...well...actualy QT generaly refers to the Qt crossplatform C++ GUI toolkit (which is what there talking about in this thread) as opposed to the Apple Quicktime media format.
--
"Never include a comment that will help someone else understand your code. If they understand it they don't need you" |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 2 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
Nice License choice (Score:3, Insightful)
by Scrag
(Scragno7h@nospam.hotmail.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @11:44AM EDT
(#7)
(User #137843 Info)
http://pcupgrade.virtualave.net
|
This license is even less restrictive than the GPL... It's not every day we get software of this quality under a license this non-restrictive. Lets all write to Borland and thank them, maybe it will send a message. If they got good feedback it could mean more quality open-source.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1, Redundant)
by 11223 on Tuesday July 25, @11:49AM EDT
(#13)
(User #201561 Info)
|
| Less restrictive? The GPL isn't restrictive at all. It's practically public-domain, the way it's phrased. The MPL license is even worse.
The reason is that proprietary modifications can be made for "internal" use... and this includes web serving. This means that Microsoft could power all of .NET with a modified version of Interbase (see my root-level post) and not have to give up source. The MPL is a bad license.
- Moderators: You should be browsing at -1, (Newest|Oldest) First, Nested, not +2, Highest Scores, Threaded
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by Alex Farber on Tuesday July 25, @11:56AM EDT
(#20)
(User #16133 Info)
http://simplex.ru/news/rus/
|
The reason is that proprietary modifications can be made for "internal" use... and
this includes web serving. This means that Microsoft could power all of .NET with a
modified version of Interbase (see my root-level post) and not have to give up
source. The MPL is a bad license.
It can be done with the GPL either,
since GPL regulates distribution only.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by 11223 on Tuesday July 25, @11:58AM EDT
(#23)
(User #201561 Info)
|
I think that you missed that I hate the GPL as much as the MPL. Ideally, any use should allow source access.
- Moderators: You should be browsing at -1, (Newest|Oldest) First, Nested, not +2, Highest Scores, Threaded
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:2, Funny)
by Kickasso on Tuesday July 25, @12:04PM EDT
(#34)
(User #210195 Info)
|
So if I download a piece of real-free software and fix a minor bug that only manifests itself with my particular configuration, then I'm obliged to set up and maintain a public FTP site so everybody can download my fix? Man, that's a heck of a lot of freedom...
IHBT? See if I care. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:2)
by (void*)
(voice@void.)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:11PM EDT
(#43)
(User #113680 Info)
|
| No. You can just create a patch, and give it back to the owner of the copyright. Whether he cares to distribute it is his business.
But whether you do that or not is irrelevant. You did not distribute the binary, so you don't need to give anyone the source.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by Kickasso on Tuesday July 25, @01:00PM EDT
(#81)
(User #210195 Info)
|
| No I don't. I just set up a box at home for my kids, and for reading /. I have enough mail at work.
Should I post my patches back to /. (and get them moderated out of existance)?
IHBT? See if I care. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by j-pimp
(justman@erols.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @01:13PM EDT
(#98)
(User #177072 Info)
http://members.tripod.com/justman
|
Ok lets be reasonable for a moment. If you download any popular OSS and modify it to fit your configuration and mail the developer the diff file he will look at it and include it. Also, assuming you give the binaries out to only yourself you are only obligated to make the source availabel to yourself upon your request. Now assuming you want to be a productive member of the open source software community you'll probally send the diffs to the maintainer and 99% of the time the will look at the code and put it in future releases. If they don't, then you probally have very unique needs and no one is going to bother you.
There are some processors that can't run a 32-bit operating system, for everything else there's NetBSD. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by Faw on Tuesday July 25, @12:02PM EDT
(#31)
(User #33935 Info)
|
AFAIK, if you make changes to a GPL program and use it internally you don't have to release the source. You do have to release the source if you give the binary to someone else. At least that's how it seems.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
ridiculous (Score:1)
by Amokscience on Tuesday July 25, @12:13PM EDT
(#45)
(User #86909 Info)
|
That's ridiculous. The GPL is restrictive. The restriction is to keep source access to anyone who purchases the product and to keep GPLed code GPLed. If that's not a restriction then you need to go check the dictionary.
Whether it is a good license or not depends on the software and use but please don't go around telling people that the GPL is not restrictive.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:ridiculous (Score:1)
by Vagatech
(root@127.0.0.1)
on Tuesday July 25, @02:42PM EDT
(#130)
(User #193069 Info)
|
Well, it depends on how you look at it. The GPL licence can be well summed up in one line:
"You have the right to do anything you want as long as you don't step on anyone elses rights in the process."
When looked at from that perspective the GPL tends to fall under "common sense" and "good and decent conduct". This is mainly set up to keep ubercorporations from taking GPL'd products that were released into the community in good faith by developers who for all intents and purposes were just trying to be good sumeritins and using there hard work to make money without any compensation to the author or the community there stealing from. As a person or a company I can take any piece of GPL'd software I want, modify it to fit my perticular needs at the time and use it free and clear. But if I want to redistribute it I'm forced to "keep it in the family" by keeping it GPL'd. So the only thing that I'm restricted from doing is hurting the author or opensource community by stealing there hard work for my own gains.
--
"Never include a comment that will help someone else understand your code. If they understand it they don't need you" |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by Omega996 on Tuesday July 25, @12:16PM EDT
(#49)
(User #106762 Info)
|
| Actually, I think the GPL is more restrictive - anytime someone tells me that I have to do something, I find that restrictive.
I prefer freedom of choice over freedom of source code (no doubt I'm in the minority, though).
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by Karma Liberator
(karmaliberator@yahoo.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @02:50PM EDT
(#133)
(User #214984 Info)
|
Which license is more restrictive depends upon whose point of view you're using to consider the license. As someone else pointed out, the MPL retains more rights for the "inital developer" at the expense of the user.
The reason is that proprietary modifications can be made for "internal" use... and this includes web serving. This means that Microsoft could power all of .NET with a modified version of Interbase (see my root-level post) and not have to give up source. The MPL is a bad license.
Er...the GPL doesn't impose restrictions on private modification. Indeed, RMS has criticized other licences for exhibiting such a "Disrespect for Privacy". Many of RMS's problems with the NPL apply to the MPL as well. I won't repeat them all here, but the biggest problem is that it is not legal to mix MPL'ed and GPL'ed code (which comprises a more than 50% of free software today, IIRC).
P.S. Sorry about all the links to the gnu.org website, but when discussing licenses, sometimes it's the easiest way to convey the spirit behind the GPL.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by munition
(munition@spank-that-webserver.org)
on Tuesday July 25, @11:53AM EDT
(#17)
(User #212134 Info)
|
It would really be nice to see them open up some of their other great products, such as their compilers and IDE's. It would be nice to see them open these up, or at least port them to Linux.
Could you imagine running C++ Builder on linux with the ability to do cross-platform development (maybe some KDE/GNOME capabilities as well as the Win32 programming libraries?)
Granted Glade is a great application for developing for GTK, it would be nice to have a much more powerful tool available for some of us to use.
MunITioN
"A mind is a terrible thing to lose" |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
Re:Nice License choice (Score:2, Interesting)
by Segfault 11 on Tuesday July 25, @11:58AM EDT
(#22)
(User #201269 Info)
|
The MPL and the BSD license are more free for the developer.
The GPL is more free for the end user.
In your opinion, which is the greater good?
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:2)
by panda on Tuesday July 25, @12:06PM EDT
(#37)
(User #10044 Info)
|
Being a developer myself, I think my answer would be biased. :-)
Frankly, I don't think most true end users care about licenses or source code. They just want software that more or less works.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by Segfault 11 on Tuesday July 25, @12:42PM EDT
(#68)
(User #201269 Info)
|
I can't disagree with anything that you have said. They want something that works, and when changes/improvements to GPL code are made, they become available to everyone.
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:2, Insightful)
by Scrag
(Scragno7h@nospam.hotmail.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:07PM EDT
(#40)
(User #137843 Info)
http://pcupgrade.virtualave.net
|
IMHO, the end user isn't usually interested in source code.
I think that the MPL just makes it much easier for the people developing the product. They usually don't have an obligation to make software for people anyway. If they are doing it to provide a product for free, they should control it how they want.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Better? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Amokscience on Tuesday July 25, @12:25PM EDT
(#51)
(User #86909 Info)
|
Depends entirely on your viewpoint and the circumstances. If you can be hurt by others commercializing your software then the choice is obvious. If you want any developer for any reason then the choice is equally easy. If you have a deep personal belief that all code should be and remain free then the choice is again easy.
GPLed software is not free in the anyone can do what he/she pleases view. It is free in the sense that no one can subvert it for his/her own public uses.
With (almost)truly free licenses like the BSD license the thing people seem to object to is the purpose of the license. You are allowed to make your project closed and commercial. This is not a drawback nor a feature. It is entirely dependant on your position and point of view. If you think all code should always be available then you of course dislike this license.
Software ultimately fulfills the needs of a customer. Sometimes that customer is the developer, other times it is end users, and sometimes it is both develoepr and users. I fail to see how the GPL is more free to the end user. The end user is not even involved with the code (maybe to compile it). It is however, sometimes, more *beneficial* to the end user. This is entirely dependant on having competent developers.
It seems to me that the vast majority of "Open" licenses are targeted almost entirely at developers. As others have said, the end user (unless a developer) doesn't care what the license is. They want a working product so they can get work done or have fun.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Better? (Score:1)
by Segfault 11 on Tuesday July 25, @02:33PM EDT
(#128)
(User #201269 Info)
|
Hopefully, everyone will get the thrust of my argument, even if I fail to fully and clearly articulate it here.
Regardless of the license, one can make the UI for Mozilla really awesome, and have it render pages beautifully (much like IE). The browser is extremely popular, and its users have no idea that the browser is spying on all the data you are sending via SSL, harvesting credit cards and building customer profiles. Of course, it wouldn't be very hard for them to get caught.
With the source (as required by GPL), _someone_ would immediately be able to discover the spyware and issue a patch to remove the undesirable "features". With MPL, one could have a binary-only distribution. How long would it take to discover this malicious use? Even if it were discovered immediately, all the other functionality would be lost.
Maybe this is great for the developers, but it's even better for the end user.
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Better? (Score:2)
by Admiral Burrito on Tuesday July 25, @03:09PM EDT
(#141)
(User #11807 Info)
|
If you can be hurt by others commercializing your software then the choice is obvious.
GPL doesn't prevent commercializing of software.
A number of times I've seen the "if anyone's going to make money off my software it's going to be me" argument in favor of the GPL. Meanwhile, Red Hat (just one example) makes a bunch of money selling GPL'ed software.
GPL legally requires the source code be made available, but it doesn't otherwise prevent commercialization by third parties.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:2)
by istartedi
(comments@vrml3d.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:52PM EDT
(#76)
(User #132515 Info)
http://www.vrml3d.com/
|
A "pure end user" is somebody who will never look at the source. Therefore, unlimited distribution, in binary form only, is maximum freedom for the pure end user. Anything else is superfluous.
If it could be demonstrated that GPL, or any other Open Source license tended to increase the distribution of a program, then your argument might make sense from the point of view that the end user would have more software. Empirical data neither confirms nor denies this. Yes, Linux is widely distributed, but so are Internet Explorer, Napster, and a lot of other closed source programs.
The argument that GPL enhances end user freedom makes the most sense when applied in the long run, where binaries go "stale" and open source remains viable. However, there are many cases of open source going "stale" too. If the developers lose interest in developing a piece of software, and move onto something else, this is just as detrimental to end users as Microsoft's planned obsolescence.
If I had wanted your website to make noise I would have licked my finger and rubbed it across the monitor. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by deefer
(deefer@[Spam:_Just_Say_No]dial.pipex.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @01:26PM EDT
(#109)
(User #82630 Info)
http://www.deefer.dial.pipex.com
|
. If the developers lose interest in developing a piece of software, and move onto something else, this is just as detrimental to end users as Microsoft's planned obsolescence.
Except, with open source, you can hire a programmer to keep your system alive for long enough to either replace it/get it stable. I doubt if MS would be quite as accomodating, especially if the obselescence is due to WhizBangGizmo v2.0 being released...
I really think that big business overlooks the emancipation from the upgrade cycle that OSS brings - I guess they're too entrenched in the hand-wad-of-cash-to-Gates-and-McNealy-every-two-years to realise what OSS means... Even Apache & Perl seem to be employed because they work, rather than the freedom us coders like with them...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Join the revolution! Online Nation |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:2)
by istartedi
(comments@vrml3d.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @02:14PM EDT
(#122)
(User #132515 Info)
http://www.vrml3d.com/
|
Except, with open source, you can hire a programmer to keep your system alive for long enough to either replace it/get it stable.
Only wealthy end users can do this. Home users and small mom-n-pop businesses are left high and dry.
If the upgrade cycle were a "wall function" that immediately required you to upgrade from x to y, then there would be a strong advantage to Open Source.
However, the upgrade cycle is not a wall. If I wanted to, I could still surf the net with Netscape 3.x and Windows95, and most of it would work.
I've seen legacy apps in business last even longer than that. Everybody poo-pooed them, but they worked, and the primary road block to getting them replaced was the expense of the custom programming and system integration that had to be done. An off-the-shelf solution, proprietary or otherwise, would have been preferable.
If I had wanted your website to make noise I would have licked my finger and rubbed it across the monitor. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:2)
by Malcontent
(malcontent@msgto.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @10:40PM EDT
(#196)
(User #40834 Info)
|
"Home users and small mom-n-pop businesses are left high and dry."
Mom and Pop and all the consumers in general always take it in shorts. Your typical Mom and Pop will be left high and dry by commercial vendors too but at least with Open source they did not pay for the privledge.
Do unto others what has been done to you |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by _xeno_ on Tuesday July 25, @12:17PM EDT
(#50)
(User #155264 Info)
|
Yeah, I think the original poster reversed the licenses. BSD-style license are more free to the end-user/public domain while the GPL is more free to the developer(s). The main difference is that with a BSD style license, one can do almost anything with the source - it's almost like not taking the copyright at all. The GPL on the other hand restricts the usage of the code, allowing the developer more control, and therefore more freedom to do what he/she pleases with the source.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:2, Informative)
by lpp on Tuesday July 25, @12:49PM EDT
(#74)
(User #115405 Info)
|
Actually, I think the original post got it correct. When they said end-user, I think they meant the developers who end up receiving the modifications. Under BSD, no such modifications need ever be made available whereas under GPL, such modifications are mandatory if the binaries are distributed.
So, the GPL imposes more restrictions on a developer who wishes to modify and distribute in binary form a GPL'ed piece of code. But it provides increased access to that code by the developers who would use the modification and perhaps extend it.
BSD style licenses, on the other hand, provide more freedom to the developer who makes a modification to source code and wishes to distribute the binaries, as they may still choose to not distribute the source modifications. The developers who use/develop the original work no longer are guaranteed access to the changes made.
Quite simple, really. Of course, this comment will probably be lost in the noise...
_lpp
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by Amigo Montoya on Tuesday July 25, @12:50PM EDT
(#75)
(User #175096 Info)
|
| Amen!
Ultimately, this comes full circle so that developer freedom equals user freedom.
It just takes a while in some cases. But look at the improvements to the desktop situation over the last year. Won't journaling be the same over the next one? Both cases are yielding more than one solution so that we end up with diversity rather than homogeneity. The best of both worlds if we can just be patient.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
Re:Nice License choice (Score:1)
by _xeno_ on Tuesday July 25, @01:46PM EDT
(#112)
(User #155264 Info)
|
| To clarify: By developer I mean the people making the program (code, binary, whatever) with the license. By end-user, I mean the people receiving the program.
As someone writing code, I'd rather release it under the GPL since that gives me the freedom to see all changes made to my code. On the other hand, as someone using other code, I'd prefer a BSD-style license since that maximizes my freedom to use it.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
- 2 replies
beneath your current threshold.
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
InterBase Corp.: still alive? (Score:1)
by latemus
(nemec@REMOVETHIS.gmx.ch)
on Tuesday July 25, @11:45AM EDT
(#8)
(User #88888 Info)
|
Isn't it interesting that the press release doesn't mention InterBase Corporation (www.interbase.com)?
I suppose the delay was mainly due to problems with the new company since the software was finished already by end of June.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
They appear to be so... (Score:1)
by Svartalf
(fearl@!spammers!die!airmail.net)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:55PM EDT
(#77)
(User #2997 Info)
http://members.xoom.com/svartalf
|
The site's still active and the press release is linked from the site. However, the links for the download of 6.0 seem to go back into the Borland/Inprise site's pages about the same. Wonder what's up? (could be that www.interbase.com can't handle the load that this rollout will generate- it'd /. all but the most robust systems...)
"All we are is dust in the wind..." -- Kansas, Dust in the Wind |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 2 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
interest part of license, help me (Score:1)
by idlmx on Tuesday July 25, @11:47AM EDT
(#11)
(User #201075 Info)
http://www.geocities.com/idlmx
|
"Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; "
- What this means is that if I modify the program, contrary to popular opinion, I only need to make the source available to people I provide the source code, this applies to a lot of license, why don't people see this? For example, if I have a hardware running linux, and I didn't make the executable avaiable to you, ie, the SETI hardware (irrelevant of if it is real or not), I am not obligiated to release the source. Am I wrong or right? I do like to know.
Time does not wait. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Excellent (Score:4, Informative)
by rockwall on Tuesday July 25, @11:50AM EDT
(#14)
(User #213803 Info)
|
As far as I'm concerned, InterBase is a pretty good piece of software. In my experiences with it, it's always performed up to expectations and it does everything I've ever needed it to do. I'm not saying it's right for everyone, but definitely check it out if you haven't done so yet.
If, on the other hand, you're already a devoted or knowledgable user, make sure you visit the Interbase developer's handbook. It's a worthwhile project that could use your help.
I'm excited about this version of Interbase. (Insofar as one can conceivably be exciting about a database -- sign of a true geek, huh?)
yours,
john
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
MySQL vs Interbase ? (Score:2, Interesting)
by Betcour on Tuesday July 25, @11:50AM EDT
(#15)
(User #50623 Info)
|
Humm - I wonder if it wouldn't be worth switching my sites from MySQL to Interbase. I could certainly use the transactions, row level locking, constraints, etc... anyone knows how slow/fast Interbase is ?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:MySQL vs Interbase ? (Score:1)
by Omega996 on Tuesday July 25, @12:03PM EDT
(#32)
(User #106762 Info)
|
| Interbase is fast - for what I've been doing with it (workgroup-sized (less than 50 users)), it's as fast or faster than MySQL, and it has better SQL support. Memory footprint's not too bad, either.
I'd highly recommend it - it's stable even when running on Win2K.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:MySQL vs Interbase ? (Score:1)
by deefer
(deefer@[Spam:_Just_Say_No]dial.pipex.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:11PM EDT
(#42)
(User #82630 Info)
http://www.deefer.dial.pipex.com
|
Interbase burns.
I don't have any nice stats for you, but we run it on a fairly low power server, with a small user base. It is pretty solid - about every 3 months it falls over; recovery is a 15 minute job (for an 85Mb DB) and _nothing_ is lost. Comparable queries to a MS SQL server machine take about the same time, only the SQL server was running on a machine with twice as much RAM and twice as many processors.
BTW, Delphi and C++ Builder (and Kylix, presumably) now support native Interbase DB components; this eliminates BDE/ODBC overhead, and provides better transaction isolation.
Nice one, and thanks a lot, Borland!
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Join the revolution! Online Nation |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
Re:MySQL vs Interbase ? (Score:1)
by Ronin Developer
(Professor@GilligansIsland.com)
on Wednesday July 26, @12:58AM EDT
(#210)
(User #67677 Info)
|
Interesting...the beta has been out for only a few months and already he has uptime stats for a year? Gotta get me one of those time machines!
In previous posts, somebody mentioned that there was little support for backups. Well, from what I learned last week, gbak allows for hot backups as well as transportability of databases between machines.
Replication technology is also available, so there should be little reason for any downtime next to a nuclear strike, IMHO.
Also, the performance stats run a few months ago were based upon the classic architecture rather than the super server architecture. I'd like to see those stats run again using the released version of IB 6. I think the results will be most interesting.
I've had IB 6 beta running on a lowly 486 for several months. Granted, it doesn't get exercised very frequently or heavily, but even this version is pretty stable and is always there when needed.
RD
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
Interbase Performance (Re:MySQL vs Interbase ?) (Score:3, Informative)
by MZamora on Tuesday July 25, @12:30PM EDT
(#59)
(User #214985 Info)
|
We've been running our stock trading system with Interbase for over four years, with great results and performance: 150 *heavy* simultaneous users, over 8000 avg daily financial transactions, over 800,000 avg daily db transactions on a midrange HP-UX machine, avg response times for interactive operations are sub-second (simultaneous with other heavy batch stuff).
Unfortunately, we *might* have to move over to Oracle because we're still not convinced that Borland takes Interbase seriously, and most big-iron development tools vendors aren't convinced either: they're *not* updating their support for Interbase (most still support up to Interbase 4.0C).
Let's see what develops in the open source community. I'm hoping that much of the functionality lacking in Interbase that commercial DBs already have will be integrated by "open sourcerers", and then we might not have to use Oracle :-).
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Interbase Performance (Re:MySQL vs Interbase ?) (Score:1)
by fm6 on Tuesday July 25, @02:05PM EDT
(#115)
(User #162816 Info)
|
| Unfortunately, we *might* have to move over to Oracle because we're still not convinced that Borland takes Interbase seriously, and most big-iron development tools vendors aren't convinced either...
Which is why Borland is spinning off Interbase (again!) and open-sourcing the product. More trust in a separate company, and open source assures that the product will live even if the company dies.
People are always saying, "Borland isn't serious about this product. Anyway, they'll be out of business next year." They'll probably still be saying it ten years from now!
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
InterBase Longevity (Re:Interbase Performance) (Score:1)
by MZamora on Tuesday July 25, @05:14PM EDT
(#167)
(User #214985 Info)
|
The problem is that spinning off a separate company ("again!") is like the sheepherd crying out "Wolf!" too many times.
Even if the product and company does last another ten years, what will happen if nobody takes it seriously again?
Our migration (or not) to Oracle is very dependent on what happens in the next six months. If things don't change, we'll have to pay a gazillion dollars to change over and ensure the continuity of our business (hint, hint for Borland).
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
That's not heavy use. (Score:1)
by jcr on Tuesday July 25, @10:35PM EDT
(#194)
(User #53032 Info)
|
800K DB hits in a DAY?
That's more like an hour's usage on the derivatives trading system I dealt with the year before last.
I'd be interested in hearing how Interbase performs under a heavy load.
-jcr
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Documentation (Score:2)
by dragonfly_blue
(mbeihoffer@uswest.net)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:59PM EDT
(#80)
(User #101697 Info)
http://mark.dragonflydynamix.com
|
| I'm glad that they finally released the source to this; I've been looking at databases for a while, and out of the top three choices Interbase was my first, followed by MySQL and then closely thereafter by PostGre.
I was kind of forced to go with MySQL because I had to have my system up and running a couple months ago, but perhaps now I can re-evaluate them.
I am a bit concerned about the MPL and how long it has taken for the Mozilla builds to be released; I know they essentially had to rewrite the entire code base, but two years? Come on. Anyway, hopefully Interbase is well-written enough that it will only require minor modifications and developer extensions, and can avoid the two or three year development cycles.
My biggest issue with MySQL vs Interbase vs PostgreSQL is kind of overlooked, though; it's not transaction support, concurrent sessions, etc, although those factors are important.
The worst part of MySQL is the absolutely horrid documentation. It is the worst document set I have ever encountered that didn't come from Redmond. If I knew MySQL better I would rewrite it myself; lord knows it needs it.
I personally hope that the Interbase code release forces MySQL to completely rewrite their documentation. I'm just glad we have choices and competition.
I say, good sir; word up. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
License Issues (Score:1)
by NRLax27
(sfarkas@nospam.student.umass.edu)
on Tuesday July 25, @01:07PM EDT
(#90)
(User #123692 Info)
|
| I am a bit concerned about the MPL and how long it has taken for the Mozilla builds to be released; I know they essentially had to rewrite the entire code base, but two years? Come on.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how does the MPL have anything to do with the Mozilla delay?
./configure
make comment
make post
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Interbase strength... (Score:1)
by Delirium Tremens on Tuesday July 25, @03:22PM EDT
(#148)
(User #214596 Info)
|
| Since you're good at Interbase, maybe you can help the fast decision makers amongst us.
I used to say go for MySQL if you need speed and do not expect too much concurrency, but go for ProgreSQL if you need transactions and complex SQL queries.
So according to you, what would be the main criteria for a quick decison regarding Interbase?
.r /etc/passwd
^D |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Interbase strength... (Score:1)
by dragonfly_blue
(mbeihoffer@uswest.net)
on Tuesday July 25, @03:53PM EDT
(#152)
(User #101697 Info)
http://mark.dragonflydynamix.com
|
| Well, first I'd like to say that I'm not good at Interbase, just to get that out of the way. ;-)
In answer to your question, though, here is a short summary of why you might find Interbase more appealing that MySQL.
- a) Interbase has a high degree of SQL-92 compliance. This is very nice for portability and compatibility; it makes it easier to import and export databases and scripts that call SQL statements.
- b) MySQL recently was GPL'ed, but they were still trying to charge for 'commercial use' up until that time. I think it took the looming InterBase release to force their hand; MySQL always had an, um, unusual licensing scheme.
- c) InterBase supports some really cool features, including support for multi-dimensional arrays, triggers, stored procedures, event alerters, and shadowed databases. These features are incredibly advanced; they may not be necessary to your business now, but you might find them "useful" in the future.
Anyway, there are plenty of other things I could go into, but as I said before, I'm not that great at InterBase just yet. Give me a few weeks to tinker with it and I'll get back to you.
I say, good sir; word up. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
Re:Documentation (Score:2)
by tdrury
(tdruryNOSPAM@mindspring.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @03:30PM EDT
(#150)
(User #49462 Info)
|
MySQL's documentation is bad?? I always thought it was pretty good.
Interbase, on the other hand, looks sparse in the documentation department. There are no books available (one old hit at FatBrain that was never published) and I cannot find anything online at www.interbase.com. There is a grassroots effort here but there is no content!
I haven't installed the RPMs yet - anyone know if there is any documentation installed? I hope I don't have to read man pages to administer this thing.
-tim
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Documentation (Score:1)
by Ronin Developer
(Professor@GilligansIsland.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @04:24PM EDT
(#157)
(User #67677 Info)
|
| The documenation that is provided for earlier versions of Interbase (4 - 5.5) was actually pretty complete.
Since IB6 is a new animal from a new company, the effort seems to have been getting the program ready. Documentation seems a bit dated at the moment, but there seems to be an effort to remedy this deficiency.
There are references to sample code, utilites and support groups on the interbase website Interbase
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Documentation (Score:1)
by dragonfly_blue
(mbeihoffer@uswest.net)
on Tuesday July 25, @04:45PM EDT
(#160)
(User #101697 Info)
http://mark.dragonflydynamix.com
|
| The O'Reilly MySQL book is great, so are some of the other third-party docs... I should have qualified that statement to say, the MySQL online docs and info that comes with MySQL is sorely lacking.
As you pointed out there are numerous good alternatives. I'd just rather have 'sparse' and well-written docs than the bramble of babblings that is the MySQL online docs.
I say, good sir; word up. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Documentation (Score:2)
by Malcontent
(malcontent@msgto.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @07:00PM EDT
(#178)
(User #40834 Info)
|
IB documentation is awsome over 10 megs of PDF files. When you installed it they giave you a URL to the docs do yoursef a favor and download them.
Do unto others what has been done to you |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
MySQL vs Interbase vs PostGreSQL (Score:2)
by Eric Green
(eric@badtux.org)
on Wednesday July 26, @12:04AM EDT
(#202)
(User #627 Info)
http://www.badtux.org/
|
| I don't know how fast Interbase is. But there is one limitation of Interbase that made it useless for my purposes: the lack of an indexable TEXT field type. I am dealing with a piece of character data that can be anywhere from 1 character to 1024 characters in length, and there can be a million of these puppies in my database. I am *NOT* going to declare a VARCHAR(1024), I don't have enough disk space for a million VARCHAR(1024) records! (this allocates 1025 bytes for each string, regardless of how many bytes are actually needed for a particular string).
PostGreSQL has had indexable TEXT forever (as well as most other features of Interbase), PostGreSQL's big problem for my purposes is insert speed (we are getting approximately 400 inserts per second on a blank database, w/fsync turned off, vs. 2400 inserts per second on MySQL). MySQL 3.23 allows indexing the first characters of a TEXT BLOB, which arguably is more useful even than the PostGreSQL version (do I *REALLY* need to index the whole bloody name, when there's only 5 people in the database whose name starts with MUNS ?!). And MySQL 3.23 has the beginnings of transaction support, though it's still six months or so before I would actually trust it for real deployment :-(.
Regardless of how fast Interbase is, I doubt it's anywhere as fast as MySQL. MySQL gets blazing speed at the expense of referential integrity support. Interbase's real competitor in the Open Source database world is PostGreSQL, not MySQL. From my preliminary look, query speeds are slightly faster than PostGreSQL, insert speeds are *MUCH* faster, and with the exception of the rather lame selection of types and built-in functions (PostGreSQL has a much richer types and functions system), it compares reasonably well feature-wise. On the other hand, PostGreSQL *DOES* have a much richer set of types, as well as a much richer set of extension languages and better interfaces from most scripting languages.... if it were a bit faster, PostGreSQL would blow Interbase out of the water.
In short: Interbase appears to fit somewhere between MySQL and PostGreSQL. It is not as full-featured as PostGreSQL (though most of the PostGreSQL feature set is utterly incomprehensible to mere mortals, and even to many of those who are working on improving it!), but, as with MySQL, it is faster. It is not as fast as MySQL, but it has many highly-desirable features that are currently only on MySQL's wish list. There is a large range of applications where it will be very valuable. It's too bad that lack of an indexable TEXT BLOB type means that my application isn't one of them... I would have loved its combination of decent speed and decent features, otherwise.
-E
-- Any attempt to brew coffee with a teapot should result in the error
code "418 I'm a teapot". The resulting entity body MAY be short and
stout. [RFC 2324] |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
something wrong with the links (Score:1, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25, @11:51AM EDT
(#16)
|
those links to the linux binaries are wrong, you
have to change the file name to IC160001LinuxJRE12.tar.gz
(the links point to IC16001LinuxJRE12.tar which gets a 404)
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
| |
|
Cobalt RaQ4 ships with Interbase (Score:3, Informative)
by dagnabit on Tuesday July 25, @12:01PM EDT
(#30)
(User #89294 Info)
|
Cobalt Networks' new RaQ4 is shipping with Interbase preinstalled...
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
JDBC 2.0 driver coming ?? (Score:1)
by matsh on Tuesday July 25, @12:03PM EDT
(#33)
(User #30900 Info)
http://www.henricson.se/mats
|
Anyone knows?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
| |
|
Effects on other free databases (Score:3, Informative)
by azz
(Spam sucks. azz at gnu.org)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:14PM EDT
(#46)
(User #12928 Info)
http://cider.bnet-ibb.de/~azz/
|
| Wow! Thanks, Borland. I'm going to enjoy playing with this tonight.
I wonder how this is going to affect PostgreSQL and MySQL? It'll be interesting to see if it sucks developers away or not. I suspect it won't, as database specialists are few and far between...
And while I'm here, did Slashdot miss Redhat's GPL release of Source Navigator (Cygnus's IDE)? Hmmmm... I don't think I'm going to get any sleep tonight. :)
"I want to use software that doesn't suck." - ESR
"All software that isn't free sucks." - RMS
"I'm interested in free beer." - Linus |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:Effects on other free databases (Score:1)
by Siqnal 11
(signal11@mediaone.net?Subject=Slashdot comment)
on Tuesday July 25, @03:00PM EDT
(#137)
(User #210012 Info)
http://www.malign.net/~bojay/
|
In the software world, it appears that often only the commercial leader is really profitable. For all the also-rans, open sourcing is a good alternative for the creator of the software and benefits everybody (except the frontrunner).
Another, similar route to open source software is through research projects that, for one reason or another, aren't commercialized; the research code is released and often becomes an important open source/free software system.
We should be happy about that: much (if not most) open source and free software started out that way.
Because so much free software starts out as commercial or research projects that, I think it's important to think about how to encourage development and research organizations to build it in such a way that the transition to free software will be easy. That means that such organizations should find it easy to use existing free software libraries, build on open APIs with free implementations, and should not feel the need to rely on proprietary libraries (which would make freeing the software later much harder).
One thing that I think is very important is to use licenses like LGPL or BSD (as opposed to GPL or QPL) for important libraries. Research and development organizations will not use software if that means making a strong commitment early on to open sourcing their software later or face uncertain expenses later. Both GPL and QPL, unfortunately, impose such uncertainties and limit options. If there is no unencumbered free or open source software, they will pick the best and most affordable proprietary libraries to build on.
The LGPL and BSD licenses, on the other hand, allow development and research organizations to keep their options open for what to do with their code. When infrastructure libraries (standard libraries, networking, gui, etc.) are released under those licenses, research and development organizations can use them, and when they decide to release their software as "free software", it will be so much more useful to the free software community than if it had been based on proprietary libraries or APIs.
For similar considerations, I think it's also important to get as much free software infrastructure on Windows. If companies start programming to free software APIs on Windows (and they have to cover the Windows market), when they go open source, their software will be much more useful to the free software community. So, the more unencumbered networking, database, and GUI libraries we can get onto Windows, the better.
So, keep that in mind when thinking about policies and licenses. While the idea that all free software is created by altruistic volunteers is appealing (and a significant amount of free software is), the reality is that a lot of free software is created by companies and donated if the software turned out not to be a winner in the market or is otherwise not commercializable. Making the life of those companies easier and allowing them to develop code that interoperates well with other free software is a win for everybody.
-o Who cares how corrupt our leaders are as long as they're tough on crime? o- |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
It fits between PostGreSQL and MySQL (Score:3, Informative)
by Eric Green
(eric@badtux.org)
on Wednesday July 26, @12:15AM EDT
(#205)
(User #627 Info)
http://www.badtux.org/
|
| Interbase fits between MySQL and PostGreSQL on the features-vs-performance scale. MySQL is very small and fast, at the expense of having few features (lack of transaction support, in particular, being a real issue for many applications). PostGreSQL has just about every feature under the sun nowdays, it has a set of standard types and functions that would be the envy of any database, it has a huge number of server side function programming languages (you can program stored procedures in Perl or TCL!), it has language interfaces to every popular scripting language and programming language, but it is rather sluggish and its database files use a lot of disk space.
Interbase fits quite well between them. Interbase has the most-desired features wanted in MySQL (transactions in particular), though these features slow it down in comparison. But it is still quite a bit faster and more compact than PostGreSQL in many applications, at the expense of having a rather limited selection of types and predefined functions.
If I were using MySQL 3.22 and needed stable transaction support, I'd probably switch to Interbase. If I were using PostGreSQL and needed more speed, I'd probably grit my teeth and wait until the next revision of the PostGreSQL storage manager, which is promised for Real Soon Now -- unless its current speed was utterly unacceptable, in which case I'd strongly look at Interbase, while gritting my teeth. Not that Interbase is a bad database. It's just that PostGreSQL has gotten much, MUCH more featuresome over the past couple of years, and many of those features, such as an indexable TEXT type (which Interbase lacks), are quite useful in the kinds of applications that I write. Having to go back to fixed-size VARCHAR records would be a step backward for me. Even MySQL 3.23 doesn't make you do that (you can index the TEXT BLOB type in MySQL 3.23, or, rather, you can index the first {n} characters of it).
-E
-- Any attempt to brew coffee with a teapot should result in the error
code "418 I'm a teapot". The resulting entity body MAY be short and
stout. [RFC 2324] |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
How much does it cost? (Score:2)
by Carnage4Life on Tuesday July 25, @12:15PM EDT
(#48)
(User #106069 Info)
http://www.google.com/search?q=dare+obasanjo&meta=lr%3D%26hl%3Den
|
I've searched the site for 10 minutes and have not been able to find anything so can someone please provide a link or answer how much it'll cost for a support license for DB that will be used by 20 to 30 employees who will all be accessing it over a local intranet via a web interface?
I am working on my final project for school which involves writing a project management application for a local business and unfortunately all the current RDBMS costs for Windows are in thousands of dollars (Oracle, SQL Server, DB2). We do not plan to support the software after the project is done so a support license is necessary.
PS: I didn't mention mySQL because it isn't an RDBMS. Read the definition of an RDBMS as well as that of a relational database or simply read C.J.Date's reviews of E.F. Codd's seminal 1970 work on relational DBs. Here's part two and part three of C.J. Date's work for anyone who's interested.
What kind of Flame Warrior are you? |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
Re:MySQL is an RDBMS, as stated in your references (Score:2, Informative)
by morzel on Tuesday July 25, @12:39PM EDT
(#63)
(User #62033 Info)
|
| An RDBMS is a program that lets you create, update, and administer a relational database. An RDBMS takes Structured Query Language (SQL) statements entered by a user or contained in an application program and creates, updates, or provides access to the database. Some of the best-known RDBMS's include Microsoft's Access, Oracle's Oracle7, and Computer Associates' CA-OpenIngres.
MySQL (notice the capital M) lets you create, update and administer a relational database through SQL statements. According to both your references, it is a full RDBMS.
You are probably referencing ACIDity, which can be achieved with a transaction logging RDBMS, and which is a completely different beast.
Either you just experienced a brainfart after a long caffeine driven coding session, or you should have studied a bit harder.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:MySQL is an RDBMS, as stated in your references (Score:1)
by Carnage4Life on Tuesday July 25, @01:06PM EDT
(#89)
(User #106069 Info)
http://www.google.com/search?q=dare+obasanjo&meta=lr%3D%26hl%3Den
|
From what is a relational database:
A relational database is a collection of data items organized as a set of formally-described tables from which data can be accessed or reassembled in many different ways without having to reorganize the database tables. The relational database was invented by E. F. Codd at IBM in 1970.
When creating a relational database, you can define the domain of possible values in a data column and further constraints that may apply to that data value.
From C.J. Drew's reviews of E.F. Codd's papers (because I can't find the original papers online):
The 1970 paper also introduces the term foreign key. (Actually, the 1969 paper briefly mentions the concept too, but it doesn't use the term.) However, the definition is unnecessarily restrictive, in that -- for some reason -- it doesn't permit a primary key (or candidate key? or superkey?) to be a foreign key. The relational model as now understood includes no such restriction.
From the MySQL site to do list (2nd column):
Full foreign key support. One probably wants to implement a procedural language first.
From MySQL site Foreign keys example:
You don't need foreign keys to join 2 tables.
The only thing MySQL doesn't do is CHECK to make sure that
the keys you use really exist in the table(s) you're referencing and it
doesn't automatically delete rows from table with a foreign key
definition. If you use your keys like normal, it'll work just fine!
Finally from the MySQL St andards Compatibility Page:
Foreign keys make life very complicated, because the foreign key definitions must be stored in a database and implementing them would destroy the whole ``nice approach'' of using files that can be moved, copied and removed.
The speed impact is terrible for INSERT and UPDATE statements, and in this case almost all FOREIGN KEY checks are useless because you usually insert records in the right tables in the right order, anyway.
There is also a need to hold locks on many more tables when updating one table, because the side effects can cascade through the entire database.
It's MUCH faster to delete records from one table first and subsequently delete them from the other tables.
You can no longer restore a table by doing a full delete from the table and then restoring all records (from a new source or from a backup).
If you have foreign keys you can't dump and restore tables unless you do so in a very specific order.
It's very easy to do ``allowed'' circular definitions that make the tables impossible to recreate each table with a single create statement, even if the definition works and is usable.
In a nutshell, MySQL does not enforce relationships so how can it be a relational database?
What kind of Flame Warrior are you? |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:MySQL is an RDBMS, as stated in your references (Score:1)
by dhogaza on Tuesday July 25, @02:08PM EDT
(#118)
(User #64507 Info)
http://donb.photo.net
|
Actually, it's not, because the principles of transaction semantics, data integrity, etc are as central to standard SQL as scalar arithmetic is to C.
ACIDity might be said to be IMPLIED by the SQL standard, i.e. correct implementation of the semantics of insert, update etc requires it.
Strangely, the entire RDMBS world except for the MySQL folk and their fans understand this.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:MySQL is an RDBMS, as stated in your references (Score:1)
by Roelof on Tuesday July 25, @03:08PM EDT
(#140)
(User #5340 Info)
http://eboa.com/
|
SQL has nothing to do with the relational model as defined by Codd. Other than that it is one of the many query languages defined to work with implementations of the relational model. It turned into the most popular supplanting Sequel, Quel, QBE, etc. But popularity has nothing to do with essentiality.
In fact you could make a case that there are no true RDBMSs at all. Most, if not all, lack some features or have added shortcuts to the pure relational model. E.g. the addition of TOP to the SELECT statement in MS SQL. You can only have TOP if you supported relational sequences. As far as I am aware sequences are not part of the relational model. Besides which MS does not provide a rigorous definition of TOP in terms of the relational model.
TOP can only make sense given an ordering such that no duplicates can occur. From that sequence you can take the first N tuples. Since SELECT is defined without ordering or distinctness requirements how can TOP be explained? Within the relational model that know nothing about, not recorgnizes, orderings implied by an implementation?
Another thing are relations. I believe Codd included the notion of domains in his model. That would indicate valid relations/joins can only be made on keys of the same domain. In practice you can darned well join anything with whatever you fancy whenever you want. Though it can be defended I don't think it is what was intended.
Ah well, whatever :)
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 2 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
Interbase Rocks (Score:1)
by thomas jaeger on Tuesday July 25, @12:25PM EDT
(#55)
(User #214990 Info)
|
Finally, Interbase v6.0 is available to all: The developers and end users. Best of all, what used to cost over $10,000 a server license back in the early 90's can now be used freely. But, the best is that it does kick MySQL and all other wannabes asses big time. I high quality product for Windows, Linux, and Solaris.
Great Job, Interbase Corp. I wish you the best of luck to survive and make enough money on the technical support.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
The question is (Score:1)
by jjr
(jjr@theotherside.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:28PM EDT
(#56)
(User #6873 Info)
http://theotherside.com/
|
Will this send a message to Microsoft/Oracle? I hope so. So people implement it at home where you can so we can make it the best product out there.
The Micro$haft BSOD T-shirt |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:The question is (Score:1)
by dartboard on Tuesday July 25, @12:48PM EDT
(#73)
(User #23261 Info)
|
No, it won't send a message to any of the big DB players. The reason is that Interbase is a totally different marketshare from the big four database vendors main products. ASE from Sybase, Oracle, SQL Server from MS, and Informix's offerings are all in a league far beyond Interbase. However, it will make jabs towards some of the smaller databases (smaller footprint) -- for example another offering from Sybase, Adaptive Server Anywhere.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:The question is (Score:1)
by Roelof on Tuesday July 25, @03:18PM EDT
(#147)
(User #5340 Info)
http://eboa.com/
|
That's what they used to say about minicomputers and later microcomputers. Sure, it has way less market share. But hardly less funcionality. In some regards it can probably still be considered to be more advanced (e.g. versioning engine) than the others.
Mini's, supermini's, microcomputers and LANs did eat into mainframe territory. There is a decided possibility Interbase can now eat harder into the market share kept by those vendors. Why not? Look at what MS did with their bought SQL Server.
But I do realize mainframes are still around and doing very well. Likewise will the mainframes in the RDBMS market.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:The question is (Score:1)
by dartboard on Wednesday July 26, @12:29AM EDT
(#206)
(User #23261 Info)
|
I just don't buy that. You don't really see Ford Escorts eating into 18-wheeler sales. They both have their uses, but they're not the same or even competing. Granted, lots of places that use Oracle could probably get by with Interbase just fine because they are running a single server (or small cluster now that Interbase has replication), but Interbase really won't scale as far as the "18-wheeler" database engines, at this point.
Note that I've been using Interbase for the past 4-5 years and have always loved it. Note also that I don't use it any more because I work for Sybase, which has it's own Interbase-like database.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Couple of oddities (Score:1)
by drnomad on Tuesday July 25, @12:28PM EDT
(#57)
(User #99183 Info)
|
Bet I was the first one to submit this story on Slashdot, but anyway, funny thing is that their license says you cannot use their trademark 'InterBase'.
I'm pleased to see InterBase being Open Source, it probably 's got something to do with Kylix.
Larry looked into Bill's ass and found more trash |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Didn't get the source quite cleaned up (Score:4, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25, @12:32PM EDT
(#61)
|
:)
/* these constants are purely idiotic; there's no point in having
a predefined constant with no meaning, but that's Ed Simon the
master programmer for you! */
#define BUFFER_LENGTH128 128
#define BUFFER_LENGTH155 155
#define BUFFER_LENGTH256 256
#define BUFFER_LENGTH360 360
#define BUFFER_LENGTH400 400
#define BUFFER_LENGTH512 512
#define BUFFER_LENGTH80 80
#define BUFFER_LENGTH60 60
#define BUFFER_LENGTH120 120
#define BUFFER_LENGTH180 180
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:Didn't get the source quite cleaned up (Score:2, Interesting)
by Anomalous Canard
(murphy(at)panix(dot)com)
on Tuesday July 25, @02:14PM EDT
(#123)
(User #137695 Info)
|
/* these constants are purely idiotic; there's no point in having
a predefined constant with no meaning, but that's Ed Simon the
master programmer for you! */
But, they do make it much easier to grep the source looking for potential buffer overflows to exploit. Thanks, Ed!
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded report or story |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Actually, it is good insurance :-) (Score:2, Funny)
by glitch! on Tuesday July 25, @03:26PM EDT
(#149)
(User #57276 Info)
|
At first glance, this seems to be going to extremes. After all, when was the last time the number 128 changed to, say 127? Or 129? Odds are, most numbers won't change values on us...
On second thought, though, what about the social and political ramifications? Suppose that we wake up one morning and find that 128 has been declared "hate speech"? (It was nice knowing you, 128!) Now what do we do with the zillions of lines of code that have to be changed, in order to avoid jail time for "hate speech" or some other felony? The answer, of course, is to abstract these potentially hateful numbers as #define statements so that we can change them later to politically approved numbers. Like "the number formerly known as 128". Or "127 plus 1".
See, it all makes sense now.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 2 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
Yet another incompatible license (Score:1)
by Julian Morrison
(julian.morrison@virgin.net)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:36PM EDT
(#62)
(User #5575 Info)
|
Don't these people realise how much of the benefits of Open Source they're giving up, by isolating their code?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Its only incompatible with viral licenses AFAICS (Score:1)
by MfA
(marco@simplex.nl)
on Tuesday July 25, @03:18PM EDT
(#144)
(User #107204 Info)
|
Incompatible with what exactly? Not with BSD, thats for sure.
As for GPL everything is incompatible with it, if you believe the zealots anyway, the so called compatible licenses merely allow sublicensing... in themselves they are not compatible, the code has to change license.
Interbase's license will play with any license which isnt viral:
"You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code."
I think the GPL has a questionable wording in the paragraph which makes it viral BTW... "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program" linking to an unmodified library is not modification in my book.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Solid Comparisions (Score:2, Interesting)
by augustz
(azajonc@pomona.edu)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:44PM EDT
(#69)
(User #18082 Info)
|
Would love to see someone throw up even a seat of the pants review of the three open source databases that have been getting a lot of attention. Interbase, MySQL and PostrgreSQL.
Would be great if it included a mix or performance, scalability information, and a look at the feature sets offered.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:Solid Comparisions (Score:2)
by Malcontent
(malcontent@msgto.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @07:05PM EDT
(#180)
(User #40834 Info)
|
There was a discussion in this vein in the mers.interbase.list NG located at news.mers.com you might want to peruse their archives. go here to search or sign up.
In a nutshell IB compares very well with potgres and mysql. It all depends on the features you need.
Do unto others what has been done to you |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Jello Comparisions (Score:2)
by Eric Green
(eric@badtux.org)
on Wednesday July 26, @12:30AM EDT
(#207)
(User #627 Info)
http://www.badtux.org/
|
| It's hard to have solid comparisons when the products themselves are shifting like jello. For example, MySQL now has an indexable TEXT type. Lack of that was one of the things that drove me to PostGreSQL a couple of years ago (I did not need transactions for that particular application, but I really did want an indexable TEXT type).
Now, if you want a jello comparison -- Interbase fits between MySQL and PostGreSQL on the features spectrum (that is, it has more features than MySQL, but lacks some features of PostGreSQL). Interbase also fits between MySQL and PostGreSQL on the speed spectrum, but is closer to MySQL speed-wise (PostGreSQL is a pig, especially on inserts... even selects are a good 10-20% slower than on most "name" databases). On the scalability spectrum, MySQL sucks (2gb limit on file size on 32-bit Linux), even the new RAID functionality is a kludge that's not going to change that significantly because it's too inflexible (have to pre-detirmine that "yes, I want to have 5 files for a max of 10gb", and woe to you if that is not enough), while PostGreSQL will happily build 50-gb database files and handle them all day long (on machines with a 2gb limit on file size, PostGreSQL automatically handles creating additional files as needed to handle the table's "data heap"). I did not have a chance to closely examine Interbase's specs on the scalability side, I know it will handle more than 2gb of data on Linux, but I don't know whether you have to pre-define how big it can get, like with MySQL. (Note that MySQL does not have the 2gb limit on OS's that properly support 64-bit filesystems).
Best bet: Download them all, create a sample database, try some sample queries, slam the @#$% out of them. Note that PostGreSQL's big speed problem for most people is going to be insert speed and its sluggishness at opening connections. Select speed will probably not be a problem for most people, because PostGreSQL is plenty fast there for the typical application. Interbase may be the solution to those woes if you need transaction support and speed too. Or you could wait for MySQL 3.23 to mature, it too has alpha-quality transaction support, though it will never have the more advanced features of Interbase or PostGreSQL ("never" is probably a strong word here, but given the MySQL author's desire for speed rather than features, it probably will remain accurate).
-E
-- Any attempt to brew coffee with a teapot should result in the error
code "418 I'm a teapot". The resulting entity body MAY be short and
stout. [RFC 2324] |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
comparison (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25, @12:56PM EDT
(#78)
|
hmmmm....
number of products shipped by Borland under the MPL - 1
number of products shipped by Netscape under the MPL - 0
Anybody else find this just a little sad?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
A nitpick (Score:3, Informative)
by PD
(pdrap@startrekmail.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:56PM EDT
(#79)
(User #9577 Info)
http://slashdot.org
|
The directories they chose for the RPM file are pretty bad.
They put files into a directory called /opt/interbase. Most Linux boxes don't have an /opt tree. That seems to be a Solaris thing.
Second, they stick their libraries and headers into /usr/include and /usr/lib. This is OK I guess, but they stick a single program into the directory /usr/local/sbin. Why not stick to the pattern they established and put it into /usr/sbin?
That's just a nit though. I suppose all that will be fixed once Debian includes it.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Informix and Oracle install in /opt (Score:1)
by mauryisland on Tuesday July 25, @08:50PM EDT
(#188)
(User #130029 Info)
|
I'm running an instance of Informix Online Server at work on a RedHat box, and it installed into /opt. I fooled with the installation of Oracle 8i that RedHat was distributing a while back, and I seem to recall that it wanted to install into /opt as well. Interbase has plenty of good company in /opt.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
Re:A nitpick (Score:1)
by Ewan
(ewan@thebananas.co.uk)
on Tuesday July 25, @01:42PM EDT
(#111)
(User #5533 Info)
|
/opt/interbase is the perfect place for it according to the linux standards base people (which is supposed to be based on a debianish system).
and /usr/local/sbin is the correct place in any unix to stick, well, local (ie non-standard) system binaries...
Maybe this is just a case of a non-open sourse developer expecting the linux community to stick to standards :)
Ewan
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Thinning of Developers (Score:1)
by miracle69
(devnull@procyon.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @01:04PM EDT
(#84)
(User #34841 Info)
|
I have to wonder how all these major projects affect other open source projects. We already have thousands of people working on the kernel, Mozilla, KDE & Gnome (with associated proggies and office suites), X, and other smaller, but just as noble projects.
Now, in the past few days, several other large resource suckers - Star Office and now Interbase.
How many major projects can be going at once before the developer pool becomes sparse?
Microsoft and McDonalds are alike. They don't make the best, but they make the most. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:Thinning of Developers (Score:1)
by NRLax27
(sfarkas@nospam.student.umass.edu)
on Tuesday July 25, @03:10PM EDT
(#142)
(User #123692 Info)
|
Actually I don't think this is much of a concern. Open source developers tend to work on projects that they find interesting. I think that these types of projects will attract different developers. However, I think that people working on the kernel and people working on the *BSD kernels are taken from the same pool. So, by following that logic, this may impact PostgreSQL, MySQL, and mSQL. However, I don't think that this is much of a concern anyway, as each of those products has a company backing them up and providing developers.
./configure
make comment
make post
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Thinning of Developers (Score:2)
by Malcontent
(malcontent@msgto.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @07:10PM EDT
(#182)
(User #40834 Info)
|
Interbase (and Borland/Inprise) have a pretty loyal following of developers using Delphi and C++ builder. My guess is that this product along with Klyx will actually increase the developer pool of open source projects by luring them from the windows world.
Do unto others what has been done to you |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Inprise is shifting directions (Score:1)
by Conspire on Tuesday July 25, @01:04PM EDT
(#85)
(User #102879 Info)
|
Well, it is good to see, even though it is "IPL'd" license.
What strikes me as more odd is this exerpt from the press release:
"Inprise Corporation (referred to in this press release as Inprise/Borland) is a leading provider of Internet access infrastructure and application development tools and services for most major platforms, including Linux(r), Solaris(tm) and Windows(r)."
Now, it seems to me like this is definately a primer for Kylix. I am not knocking Inprise, I think Kylix could be a huge kick in the rear for Linux to go mainstream, but really........since when have Borland/Inprise ever been a leading supplier of Linux dev. tools? Ok, so they WANT to be a leading supplier, but why claim you are when you are'nt....yet.???? Marketing oh marketing....
And, why in the world did they put Linux and Solaris in front of windoze in that sentence? I mean, Delphi was made what it was today because of windoze.
My guess is....the guys at Borland/Inprise have had so much fun porting to Linux and yes...Solaris that they are just excited with creaming-jeans and want to tell the world that they are now converts. I mean surely the port must be a piece of pie without the blue screen coming up every half hour....hehe.
Forever linuxized I AM.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
| |
|
Interbase (Score:4, Interesting)
by jallen02
(:-( .)
on Tuesday July 25, @01:06PM EDT
(#87)
(User #124384 Info)
http://gdev.net/~jallen
|
I found myself wondering exactly what Interbase
could do for me
So I dug through their site (not hard to find) and found this lil gem
Interbase Product Overview
Interbase has some very awesome features. The overview took the tone of a semi marketing type item yet it was infomrative and if you read through some of the garbage its rather clear to see as a programmer/developer what Interbase offers.
Some of the features that stuck out in my mind from the over view.
-Small memory footprint
-Triggers
-Stored Procedures
-User Definable Functions with some 'libraries' per say already defined for math and string handling
-Alert events
EX:A certain item goes below xyz dollars it can send an alert using some sort of constant polling method. I am not sure exactly what this one was.. but basically it looks like whenever changes are done to the table if certain criteria are met it can call up a stored proc/UDF or something. This is a bit more powerful than a trigger or a stored procedure since you do not have to do any speical coding on a insert/update/delete.
Some other interesting things... There was a *LOAD* of case studies on the interbase site.
Case Studies
I looked at some of these and they were real industry proven case studies IMO.
Its Free.. and it has a good reputation
You can buy support for it
It appears to be VERY ANSI Compliant and supports all the trappings of MS SQL Server..
It also claimed to be self optimizing... anyways hope this provided a little information.
Jeremy
If you think education is expensive, try ignornace
-Derek Bok (Former Havard President) |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:Interbase (Score:2, Interesting)
by jeffcuscutis
(cuscutis@ispchannel.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @05:49PM EDT
(#170)
(User #28426 Info)
|
The event alerters are a way to communicate information to database clients. For example:
I have an alerter on the insert or update trigger of a particular table. Any application that listens to that alerter will get a notification when an insert or update of that table happens.
This can be very useful. You don't need to keep polling the database when there are no changes.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:Interbase (Score:3, Informative)
by Malcontent
(malcontent@msgto.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @06:47PM EDT
(#175)
(User #40834 Info)
|
Dalton Calford has written Robots or agents that listen and react to IB events in different languages. This aspec tof Interbase is a potential goldmine for developers.
Dalton in a fit of immense generosity and goodwill has posted some other tips, tricks, musings here.
BTW a very poweful one two three punch is Delphi IBObjects, interbase or soon to be klyx, ibobjects, interbase.
One more thing. Have you downloaded the documentation yet? it ROCKS!. This is best documentation for a open source project I have ever seen (well maybe php is pretty awsome too).
Make no mistake this a serious contender for the database sweepstakes.
Do unto others what has been done to you |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
What can it do? (Score:1)
by geoffeg
(geoffeg@nispam.sloth.org)
on Tuesday July 25, @01:10PM EDT
(#93)
(User #15786 Info)
|
I've looked over the interbase website but I can't seem to find much information about the product itself and it's capabilities so I will ask the slashdot community:
* What SQL-based features does it have and lack?
* What are the memory and CPU requirements?
* How stable is it?
* How does it compare to Postgres, Oracle and MySQL (in speed and features)?
* How well does it scale? Any clustering cabilities?
Thanks,
Geoff
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:What can it do? (Score:1)
by E.R. on Tuesday July 25, @06:00PM EDT
(#171)
(User #116391 Info)
|
* What SQL-based features does it have and lack?
The only thing it seems to lack is the INTERVAL data type (for storing time intervals).
* How does it compare to Postgres, Oracle and MySQL (in speed and features)?
I've read a test on InterBase vs. Postgres, where InterBase came out best in just about everyting, except where multiple clients were working simultaneously (Postgres was far better in this respect). But since then IB has been changed from process-per-client to thread-per-client, so I guess that InterBase would win a comparison now.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Stability Comparison to MySQL (Score:1)
by NRLax27
(sfarkas@nospam.student.umass.edu)
on Tuesday July 25, @01:15PM EDT
(#101)
(User #123692 Info)
|
I am just about to roll out a pretty big database application for a school I work at. I was using MySQL as the back end. There is a discussion above that states that Interbase is as fast as MySQL. Does anyone know how they compare in terms of stability? There is one mention of Interbase crashing every 3 months. This is obviously not A Good Thing (tm).
./configure
make comment
make post
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Speed, stability (Score:2)
by Eric Green
(eric@badtux.org)
on Wednesday July 26, @12:34AM EDT
(#208)
(User #627 Info)
http://www.badtux.org/
|
| An application crashing every three months is not the same thing as a database crashing every three months.
Regarding speed, MySQL is and always will be the fastest SQL database on the planet, bar none. It gets that speed at a cost, though -- tossing out every feature that might possibly slow down the database. For many people, Interbase hits a very sweet point on the features vs. performance spectrum, it is faster and more compact than most "full-featured" databases, while still having the majority of functionality that most reasonable people would consider nice to have.
-E
-- Any attempt to brew coffee with a teapot should result in the error
code "418 I'm a teapot". The resulting entity body MAY be short and
stout. [RFC 2324] |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Interbase vs MySQL? (Score:1)
by Capitalist Dog...
(glassjacket@NO-SPAM.yahoo.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @02:27PM EDT
(#127)
(User #215025 Info)
http://www.websitemachines.com
|
Can anyone comment on the advantages of using
Interbase as opposed to MySQL?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Connectivity from other apps? (Score:1, Troll)
by drinkypoo on Tuesday July 25, @02:34PM EDT
(#129)
(User #153816 Info)
|
So now what I want to know is, how do I interface to this sucker? I'm kind of a bozo when it comes to programming, so if you tell me to "use the source" I'm going to offer you a rectally fitted foot.
I see there's a JDBC driver. I assume there's an ODBC driver. Is there a perl module? How much does the C library suck?
You are what you do when it counts --Steakley |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:Connectivity from other apps? (Score:2, Informative)
by apropos
(wcstom (dude-man) yahoo.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @03:05PM EDT
(#139)
(User #12176 Info)
http://alterworld.net
|
There is a new ODBC driver in the works from Jim Starkey (the original architect of Interbase). Yes, there's a perl module. There's a python module. There's a zope module in the works. The C library is based on DB2 since it was the closest thing to a standard when they were writing it.
Check out www.interbase2000.org, there's even an alpha quality DB-OLE (or whatever the heck it's called) driver.
Free Pascal support seems to be in the works, but since Inprise open-sourced the IB-Express objects for Delphi, maybe they will eventually compile under FPC as well.
The sweetest way to connect is through Jason Wharton's IBObjects using Delphi or BCB. Hopefully these will eventually migrate over to Linux when the Kylix project releases Delphi 6 for Linux in late September.
Interbase's best attributes are: size (this is not bloatware, people!) and reliability (one of the case studies refers to usage in a tank because when the big gun goes, the computer reboots).
The super-niftiest feature is the multigenerational architecture where readers never block writers and writers never block readers. I'm sure other DBMS's have something like this, but Interbase was the first.
Jim Starkey, the "Big Bad Wolf" of Interbase and original author claims to have invented the concept of a BLOB (binary large object) stored in a relational database.
This database has been around for more than 15 years. It's interesting looking at the code - you can compile for some quite rare platforms. What is the Apollo?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
The True History Of Blobs (Score:1)
by baudtender
(baudtender@rocketmail.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @05:04PM EDT
(#163)
(User #80377 Info)
|
> Jim Starkey, the "Big Bad Wolf" of Interbase and original author claims to have invented the concept of a BLOB (binary large object) stored in a relational database.
It's quite a story, and you'll find at least 2 errors in the above sentence when you read about it:
http://members.tripod.com/cvalde/misc/blob_true_history.htm
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
- 2 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
IPL?? (Score:2)
by RPoet
(haakon@nilsen.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @02:55PM EDT
(#134)
(User #20693 Info)
http://quit.net/~haakon/
|
Why so many licenses? Now, this custom-written license for ONE specific product, Interbase. Does this imply that Borland is never going to release source under such an open license? Or will they carbon-copy-and-rename the license for every other "IPL" licensed product?
Is the IPL approved by the Open Source Initiative?
Methinks all these new licenses are bloating the license namespace ;)
--
Did you check with quit.net? |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:IPL?? (Score:1)
by baudtender
(baudtender@rocketmail.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @05:08PM EDT
(#165)
(User #80377 Info)
|
Because a corporation like Inprise/Borland has many lawyers to pay, and lawyers have a vested interest in doing stuff that makes them get paid.
Open source law practice - now there's a concept I could sink my teeth into.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
Re:IPL?? (Score:1)
by rowland on Tuesday July 25, @09:52PM EDT
(#192)
(User #12870 Info)
|
Blame those who led the way for not using a "General" license. First, it would be a little confusing to use the Mozilla Public License (MPL) when the product has nothing to do with Mozilla. Already at least one clueless poster, who at least had heard that the IPL was a renamed MPL, has spouted off about how he hoped it wouldn't have the problems the Mozilla project has had, like the Mozilla project's problems were related to its license! If Netscape/AOL had used a more generic name, others would have less trouble adopting it wholesale. Credit RMS for not calling the GPL the "Free Software Foundation Public License (FSFPL)." It's hard to buy in to a name when it has someone else's organization as part of it. Second, the release to Open Source was supposed to be from a spun-off Interbase Corporation, therefore calling it the Borland/Inprise Public License would be inappropriate--not that Dale Fuller wasted any space in the press release even mentioning the new company (which is still waiting for lawyers to get around to finishing the deal).
Brent
100,000 lemmings can't all be wrong. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Zope Database Adapter (Score:1)
by Xar
(jkhoffman@usa dot net)
on Tuesday July 25, @02:57PM EDT
(#135)
(User #11113 Info)
http://www.jkhoffman.com
|
Anyone out there with an interest in InterBase and Zope should know that there is a nice, multi-threaded, Database Adapter for Zope called gvibDA.
Zope and InterBase make an awesome combination for building database backed websites.
Enjoy.
--Xar
Don't let the 0.1 version number scare you. It's quite usable.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
SlashCode - InterBase? (Score:1)
by smagruder
(smagruder@pangeatech.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @02:58PM EDT
(#136)
(User #207953 Info)
http://www.democracy2.com
|
Lookin' forward to the version of SlashCode that uses InterBase rather than MySQL. :)
Steve Magruder, Technopolist
Got power? Democracy 2.0 |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
How is it in practice? (Score:3, Interesting)
by AugstWest
(fnord@themanagement.egg)
on Tuesday July 25, @03:02PM EDT
(#138)
(User #79042 Info)
http://www.infinitypointone.com
|
We're looking at paying our Oracle tax in a few months, and I'm not looking forward to it.
We're building a portal on EJB, and we need a rock-solid backend. Everyone of course trusts Oracle, but my GOD do you ever pay for it.
What've been people's experiences so far with this DB?
Progressive Fusion |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:How is it in practice? (Score:2)
by Malcontent
(malcontent@msgto.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @06:55PM EDT
(#177)
(User #40834 Info)
|
Well it's no Oracle but then what is? No clustering, no incremental backups, no raw device support, almost no tuning options (no really needed though), no JVM in the database etc. If you are not using the very high end features of Oracle switch otherwise you might need to stick with oracle.
Do unto others what has been done to you |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Additional features (Score:1)
by shadrack on Tuesday July 25, @05:09PM EDT
(#166)
(User #49555 Info)
|
Interbase also runs on Win98/NT. Unlike MS SQL, you can design/develop on those platforms, and deploy on any supported platform. This is truly great. Previous to ver 6, IB on Win98 would legally support up to 5 users. Don't know how this works now.
There is also the possibility this could have a direct negative impact on crappy MS ACCESS, once the ODBC drivers are stable. A real commercial quality RDBMS to deploy for those stuck in Win98/VB land (thankfully I am not).
Hurray
Please no flames, just pointing out facts.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
| |
|
My problems with Interbase (Score:2)
by doom
(doom@kzsu.stanford.edu)
on Tuesday July 25, @06:33PM EDT
(#174)
(User #14564 Info)
http://www.grin.net/~mirthless/index.html
|
| Go to www.borland.com, and take a look at the announcement. See the
slogan? "The OPEN Source Database". Okay, you
can argue that MySQL has only just gone GPL,
and isn't really much of a database program. But what happened to postgresql?
This kind of, uh, "marketing" does not inspire confidence.
Someday I hope the open source world will progress
to the point where it will stop getting excited
every time some corporation tosses a failing
product over the wall.
Incidentally, from eavesdropping on the postgresql developer list, I gather that their take on
interbase is that postgresql will be as good
or better by around 7.1 or 7.2 (the current release is 7.0). I believe the only key feature
postgresql is missing at the moment is outer
joins.
(Warning, blatant religious evangelism follows.)
Postgresql is BSD liscensed, and has a really good
team of open source developers actively working
on it, including Tom Lane and Bruce Momjian...
(unlike Inprise, which is now in the position
of trying to drum up community support using
an MPL-style license).
Postgresql has been making rapid improvements over the last year or so (though it still has the worst name of any software project, ever...). Bruce Momjian has a book coming out about postgresql and the full text is available online.
Commercial support for postgresql is
available from places such as Great Bridge.
(And whatever you do, don't mention Perl in this
thread, or you'll have the Python fanatics in here
too.)
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:My problems with Interbase (Score:1)
by naked code on Tuesday July 25, @06:52PM EDT
(#176)
(User #199039 Info)
|
>>(unlike Inprise, which is now in the position of trying to drum up community support using an MPL-style license).
Interbase has been used by Borland language users for years. Now we don't have to pay server lic. yeah.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
- 3 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
Article at ZDNet (Score:1)
by Ranx on Tuesday July 25, @07:43PM EDT
(#186)
(User #28829 Info)
http://bitstorm.org/
|
| Haven't read enough?
Read this (rather old) article which compares Interbase with PostgreSQL and MySQL.
Bill Gates gets creamed. The original MPEG:
http://www.bitstorm.org/gates/
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Threaded Interbase (Score:2)
by Eric Green
(eric@badtux.org)
on Wednesday July 26, @12:46AM EDT
(#209)
(User #627 Info)
http://www.badtux.org/
|
| one thing to note is that the release version of Interbase does include the threaded database engine for Linux, which should significantly increase multi-user performance as compared with the ancient version tested in that article.
Also worthy to note that the user-friendly DBMS management tool is apparently written in Pascal, and is not going to be usable on Linux until Kylix is up and going.
-E
-- Any attempt to brew coffee with a teapot should result in the error
code "418 I'm a teapot". The resulting entity body MAY be short and
stout. [RFC 2324] |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:Interbase and conixon.com (Score:1)
by PotatoNO
(justin@jplt.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @12:01PM EDT
(#26)
(User #15935 Info)
http://www.jplt.com
|
So if it's open source (is the license close enough to consider this actually being open?) why couldn't the community just embrace and extend them back? Or at least use some of the code in other projects (Postgres,My)
Try jplt. It's cool and has an open-submission queue. |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:Interbase and conixon.com (Score:1)
by baywulf on Tuesday July 25, @12:05PM EDT
(#35)
(User #214371 Info)
|
"So if it's open source (is the license close enough to consider this actually being open?) why couldn't the community just embrace and extend them back? Or at least use some of the code in other projects (Postgres,My)"
Disregarding the license issue, IMHO databases are very complicated pieces of code and you can't just lift chunks of code from one project to another. Besides, what would be the point?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:That Stallman guy.. eh? (Score:2)
by Malcontent
(malcontent@msgto.com)
on Tuesday July 25, @07:18PM EDT
(#183)
(User #40834 Info)
|
Apparently there is nothing wrong with bad mouthing people who disagree with you either. Hey aren't you doing exactly what you are complaining about? So RMS speaks his mind and critisizes people who disagree with him so what? So his followers also speak out what of it?
At least he does not pay people to pretend they agree with him, hire advertising agencies, or PR firms like every single corporation does. At least he does not spend a billion dollars a year telling you that GPL is better then MPL like coke and pepsi do.
He believes something passionately and speaks his mind. He is convincing and other people choose to help him carry his message. Hos is this different then Rush Limbaugh or Dubya bush?
I guess it's OK for corporate lackeys to rail against Unions but not OK for RMS to speak out against insane IP laws.
Do unto others what has been done to you |
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
| |
16 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
|
