What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Beside its an opensource and supported by community, what's the fundamental
differences between PostgreSQL and those high-price commercial database (and
some are bloated such as Oracle) from software giant such as Microsoft SQL
Server, Oracle, and Sybase?

Is PostgreSQL reliable enough to be used for high-end commercial
application? Thanks

[Joel Garry]

"Jim Kennedy" <ke************ *************** *@attbi.net> wrote in message news:<5lSpc.629 44$xw3.3682312@ attbi_s04>...

But clearly the company attitudes are very different with regards to
stability, security, and performance. I agree that one should use the right
tool for the right job. However, one should also look at all the costs one
is going to occur in using the tool. (unexpected downtime, loss of data,
performance etc.) If the trade offs are okay, go for it; just don't be
niave they don't exist.

This is the real problem. Most places that use Windows don't know how
and won't pay someone else to properly figure the trade-offs.

The problem in my experience is not so much the OS as the operators.

You can't fix something broken by design. How many Security certifications
does SQL Server or Windows 2000 have? (none)

No, the purveyors of the OS made the decision to put ease of use over
security in the face of overwhelming evidence of what most operators
will do.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Buy a lotto ticket lately?

[Howard J. Rogers]

Joel Garry wrote:

[snip]

I think a good DBA would consider that unnecessary problems that
reduce productivity and seriously add to workload in an enviroment of
insufficient IT resources are something to be avoided.
"Appropriat ely" indeed.

In the past, you could make your argument, because of the cost
differential between Windows and Everything Else. But with linux
mainstream and GUI, you now have to compare the differentials on the
same hardware with the same talent pool and low transition costs, and
it loses.

It's not as pat as that.

I know it's not quite the same thing, but I am more than willing -in
fact, I am desirous- to convert my newish (5 months) laptop to running
Linux. You know why XP is still on it? Because 3 of the distros refuse
to even install on it. Fedora and Mandrake do, but neither of them have
a clue about my 802.11g wireless card. One has a problem with my
graphics driver. And both have problems with the external firewire drive.

Now I'm sure I could poke around inside /etc/something and fix all that
up. But Windows gets all of it right, first time, every time, and I
don't have to fiddle at all. So what's the cost equation there? And if
it's not true for me that "the same talent pool" can make both work
equally well, I suspect it's not going to be true for a lot of shops
without some serious re-training/retrenchment/re-hiring costs.

Now, it's a laptop, and Linux on laptops is a bit tricky generally, and
that's rather different from the server market, I'll agree. And yes, I
have Linux servers running Oracle perfectly well. But those are fairly
old boxes (early Penitum IVs, an Athlon 1200, etc), and not state of the
art. And I know all about IBM and HP's enthusiastic Linux involvement,
amongst others.

But I still don't think that you can just trot out the "it loses"
argument and not justify it case by case (where, many times, Linux will
justify itself handsomely I have no doubt). But Hardware vendor support?
Drivers? Linux frequently seems to just play catch-up. Which might, or
might not, be a show-stopper.

Plus, given the context of the current discussion, there are many
occasions when someone will positively want to run SQL Server, and
perfectly justifiably too. At which point, it (Windows) most certainly
doesn't lose, does it? I don't think Crossover Office quite does SQL
Server just yet.

Regards
HJR

[Dusan Bolek]

"Howard J. Rogers" <hj*@dizwell.co m> wrote in message news:<40******* *************** @news.optusnet. com.au>...

It's not as pat as that.

I know it's not quite the same thing, but I am more than willing -in
fact, I am desirous- to convert my newish (5 months) laptop to running
Linux. You know why XP is still on it? Because 3 of the distros refuse
to even install on it. Fedora and Mandrake do, but neither of them have
a clue about my 802.11g wireless card. One has a problem with my
graphics driver. And both have problems with the external firewire drive.

Now I'm sure I could poke around inside /etc/something and fix all that
up. But Windows gets all of it right, first time, every time, and I
don't have to fiddle at all. So what's the cost equation there? And if
it's not true for me that "the same talent pool" can make both work
equally well, I suspect it's not going to be true for a lot of shops
without some serious re-training/retrenchment/re-hiring costs.

I can't argue with you about your laptotp, but in general Linux has
much better hardware support build inside than Windows. The reason for
this is that even the newest Windows XP are quite old (about two
years), so they're not supporting hardware younger than two years. On
the other hand, any major Linux distribution has new versions
available at least twice a year, not mentioning new kernel releases on
monthly basis.
For example on my one year old PC, Fedora Core 1 just out of the box
can recognize and install all of my hardware. When installing XP I
need to:

1. borrow an ancient device called floppy disc drive, because that's
the only way how to supply a driver for my on-board serial-ATA
controller.

2. install drivers for nForce2 chipset

3. install drivers for Radeon 9700Pro (or enjoy VGA resolution and
colours).

4. install drivers for on-board NIC.

5. install drivers for Audigy 2.

So on my one year old hardware it is not even possible to install the
latest Windows.
People are often confusing operating system hardware support with
having all CDs with drivers around. Is it true, that all hardware is
comming with Windows drivers, but that's a vendor support, not
operating system support.
For Linux users getting an appropriate driver could be more
challenging, but situation is steadily improving and when I needed to
get and install a driver for a brand new Intel 1000 NIC it took less
than five minutes (the same time as on Windows) and was needed only
because of a two year old distribution used (any newer distro has
support for this card already built-in).
So I think the support for hardware is a reason for and not against
Linux. Of course, there could be some problems and some hardware still
needs some tweaking or is not working at all, but that's the problem
of a manufacturer and there is a lot of brands for any component, so
is not a big problem to buy a proper one.

--
Dusan Bolek

Email: sp*****@seznam. cz
Pls add "Not Guilty" to the subject, otherwise your email is going to
be burnt as a SPAM.

[Howard J. Rogers]

Dusan Bolek wrote:

I can't argue with you about your laptotp, but in general Linux has
much better hardware support build inside than Windows.
A little bit of a sneaky word play there, Dusan! I don't care which O/S
has better support "inside". I just care which O/S has better support
period. Whether my drivers have to be sourced from third party websites,
or are included on the O/S installation CDs, it really doesn't matter.
The reason for
this is that even the newest Windows XP are quite old (about two
years), so they're not supporting hardware younger than two years. On
the other hand, any major Linux distribution has new versions
available at least twice a year, not mentioning new kernel releases on
monthly basis.
For example on my one year old PC, Fedora Core 1 just out of the box
can recognize and install all of my hardware. When installing XP I
need to:

1. borrow an ancient device called floppy disc drive, because that's
the only way how to supply a driver for my on-board serial-ATA
controller.

2. install drivers for nForce2 chipset

3. install drivers for Radeon 9700Pro (or enjoy VGA resolution and
colours).

4. install drivers for on-board NIC.

5. install drivers for Audigy 2.
As I say, installing drivers is not an issue.

I have to install a driver for my 802.11g network card on Windows XP,
too. You know what the vendor said when I asked about Linux support:
"there is a generic driver, but you'll need to recompile your kernel
before it works". And that was the hardware vendor talking!!

Slightly different, don't you think?
So on my one year old hardware it is not even possible to install the
latest Windows.
People are often confusing operating system hardware support with
having all CDs with drivers around. Is it true, that all hardware is
comming with Windows drivers, but that's a vendor support, not
operating system support.
Well, people may well confuse it, but I don't. Provided a simple driver
installation is all that's required, to me that counts as 'working first
time every time'. If it involved registry hacking, different story (but
it rarely does). If it involves kernel recompilation, forget it!
For Linux users getting an appropriate driver could be more
challenging, but situation is steadily improving
Yes, I keep hearing this. And it's true. All I have to do for my laptop
to work is simply wait until some new distro ships that includes the 2.6
kernel in-built. Unless I want to get seriously adventurous in the
meantime.

That isn't an option, of course, when everything works as advertised,
right now, on this dreadful 2 year-old operating system we call Windows.
and when I needed to
get and install a driver for a brand new Intel 1000 NIC it took less
than five minutes (the same time as on Windows) and was needed only
because of a two year old distribution used (any newer distro has
support for this card already built-in).
So I think the support for hardware is a reason for and not against
Linux.
Well, that's an interesting outcome from a logic process: HJR reports
hardware incompatibiliti es only for Linux. So let's just say Linux is
better with hardware than Windows! I suppose it may well be true for
you. It certainly isn't true for me, though.
Of course, there could be some problems and some hardware still
needs some tweaking or is not working at all, but that's the problem
of a manufacturer

It also happens to be the problem for the *end user* if it's the poor
end user that's trying to get their system working under Linux!

Now, as I say, me and my laptop are not a particularly good example of
what will necessarily happen in a server room, and I readily accept that.

Regards
HJR

[Dusan Bolek]

"Howard J. Rogers" <hj*@dizwell.co m> wrote in message news:<40******* *************** @news.optusnet. com.au>...

Dusan Bolek wrote:
I have to install a driver for my 802.11g network card on Windows XP,
too. You know what the vendor said when I asked about Linux support:
"there is a generic driver, but you'll need to recompile your kernel
before it works". And that was the hardware vendor talking!!
<snipped>

Well, people may well confuse it, but I don't. Provided a simple driver
installation is all that's required, to me that counts as 'working first
time every time'. If it involved registry hacking, different story (but
it rarely does). If it involves kernel recompilation, forget it!

It seems to me that we hit the point. For me, a kernel recompilation
is a normal task to be done, but for some people (probably including
you) recompiling of linux kernel still has some aura of an advanced
hacking. It was true in old days (five years before), but now it is an
extremely easy task, almost anyone can do this. Really, try to
reconfigure and recompile some of new 2.6 kernels and you will see
that there is no problem at all. Just:

1. download, untar <- no big deal
2. run make menuconfig and you will get GUI (well it is in text mode,
but it behave like GUI, however X-Win version is also available),
where you can select and unselect anything including drivers (probably
also for your wireless card).
3. make <- compilation starts
4. make modules_install <- instalation of modules, nothing to be worry
about, no option just run
5. make install <- on advanced distributions with GRUB this will also
copy a new kernel into /boot, create initrd file and update your
configuration so your brand new kernel is already in GRUB menu after
reboot!

That's all. Maybe I'm weird, but for me this is much easier than
making my eight year old FDD work (as I remember according to MS and
Intel five years before should FDD alredy be a part of history).

--
Dusan Bolek

[Howard J. Rogers]

Dusan Bolek wrote:

"Howard J. Rogers" <hj*@dizwell.co m> wrote in message news:<40******* *************** @news.optusnet. com.au>...

Dusan Bolek wrote:
I have to install a driver for my 802.11g network card on Windows XP,
too. You know what the vendor said when I asked about Linux support:
"there is a generic driver, but you'll need to recompile your kernel
before it works". And that was the hardware vendor talking!!

<snipped>

Well, people may well confuse it, but I don't. Provided a simple driver
installatio n is all that's required, to me that counts as 'working first
time every time'. If it involved registry hacking, different story (but
it rarely does). If it involves kernel recompilation, forget it!

It seems to me that we hit the point. For me, a kernel recompilation
is a normal task to be done, but for some people (probably including
you) recompiling of linux kernel still has some aura of an advanced
hacking.

That is absolutely true. But just to show I'm not timid, I have printed
out your mail and am going to try it tomorrow.

However, whether it counts as advanced or not, I would say it's a tad
more inconvenient than supplying the vendor's drivers!!
It was true in old days (five years before), but now it is an
extremely easy task, almost anyone can do this. Really, try to
reconfigure and recompile some of new 2.6 kernels and you will see
that there is no problem at all. Just:

1. download, untar <- no big deal
2. run make menuconfig and you will get GUI (well it is in text mode,
but it behave like GUI, however X-Win version is also available),
where you can select and unselect anything including drivers (probably
also for your wireless card).

Now just you wait a cotton-pickin' minute right there!

*This* is the tricky bit, don't you think!? "Just select or unselect
anything" makes it sound like the dessert counter at Wendy's. But we've
not talking varieties of Bavarian Cheesecake, but indecipherable options
with unfathomable implications.

Well, we were last time I ever tried this.

Oh. And also the last time I ever tried this, I was there for a good
hour working my way through all the options before giving up.

What you've done here is a bit like the pope saying to Michelangelo,
"Well, I was thinking of a bit of a paint job".

3. make <- compilation starts
4. make modules_install <- instalation of modules, nothing to be worry
about, no option just run
5. make install <- on advanced distributions with GRUB this will also
copy a new kernel into /boot, create initrd file and update your
configuration so your brand new kernel is already in GRUB menu after
reboot!

That's all. Maybe I'm weird, but for me this is much easier than
making my eight year old FDD work (as I remember according to MS and
Intel five years before should FDD alredy be a part of history).

--
Dusan Bolek

I will give it a go, nonetheless. It's been at least 7 weeks since I
re-installed my laptop (with XP), and I get a bit stir-crazy after that
long.

One of the things I actually like about Linux is that it is so awkward
to use, I tend not to muck around with it much once it's working, and as
a result, things don't continually and progressively 'degrade' over
time. Accordingly, my Linux installs last *much* longer than my Windows
ones.

:-)
HJR