[News] Unisys Offer to Integrate MySQL
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| Unisys Corp. of Blue Bell, Pa., has signed a partnership with MySQL AB
| of Sweden to incorporate the open-source MySQL database into the
| integrator's own offerings and to offer MySQL support and consulting
| services.
`----
yttrx
Two points.
1. MySQL is a steaming pile of utterly useless shit.
2. Unisys is still around?
-----yttrx
Roy Schestowitz
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> Open-source integration
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Unisys Corp. of Blue Bell, Pa., has signed a partnership with MySQL AB
>> | of Sweden to incorporate the open-source MySQL database into the
>> | integrator's own offerings and to offer MySQL support and consulting
>> | services.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.gcn.com/print/25_28/41991-1.html
>
> Two points.
>
> 1. MySQL is a steaming pile of utterly useless shit.
Ever considered manageing a 100KB database? The issue of growth and scale set
aside? Affordability is what enables the Web to grow so quickly and pose
such a low entry barrier (whether that's a good or a bad thing). *smile*
> 2. Unisys is still around?
Yes and Unisys also says that Open Source will have the same impact that the
Internet has had on technology. Unisys is embracing Open Source. And it's
not always an indication of demise or an early death knell. Sun's server
sales surges in the last quarter. And a lost of products are being
open-sourced, including hardware designs. Lastly, Ubuntu has formed a
special relationship with Sun and I suspect it now runs on some of their
servers. OpenSalaris aside... IBM claimed it is a fake gesture.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | No SCO code was used to generate this sig
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
1:05pm up 61 days 1:17, 7 users, load average: 0.30, 0.53, 0.52
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
yttrx
> __/ [ yttrx ] on Tuesday 19 September 2006 12:36 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>> Open-source integration
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Unisys Corp. of Blue Bell, Pa., has signed a partnership with MySQL AB
>>> | of Sweden to incorporate the open-source MySQL database into the
>>> | integrator's own offerings and to offer MySQL support and consulting
>>> | services.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.gcn.com/print/25_28/41991-1.html
>>
>> Two points.
>>
>> 1. MySQL is a steaming pile of utterly useless shit.
>
>
> Ever considered manageing a 100KB database? The issue of growth and scale set
> aside? Affordability is what enables the Web to grow so quickly and pose
> such a low entry barrier (whether that's a good or a bad thing). *smile*
>
Hahaha...
I only have two problems with MySQL, and they're both major:
1. it does not queue insert loads correctly (inconsisently long waits, very
bad)
2. there's no way to take a hot dump of a running database. That means any
time you back up a MySQL DB, there's table locking. Again, very bad.
If MySQL means to compete with the likes of DB2, Oracle and Sybase, they need
to fix these two major, massive points.
Then they need to fix things like horrid scalability.
>> 2. Unisys is still around?
>
>
> Yes and Unisys also says that Open Source will have the same impact that the
> Internet has had on technology. Unisys is embracing Open Source. And it's
> not always an indication of demise or an early death knell. Sun's server
> sales surges in the last quarter. And a lost of products are being
> open-sourced, including hardware designs. Lastly, Ubuntu has formed a
> special relationship with Sun and I suspect it now runs on some of their
> servers. OpenSalaris aside... IBM claimed it is a fake gesture.
>
It does indeed run on some of their servers, but that's no fault of their
own. Linux was ported to Sparc architecture ages ago, and besides that,
Sun is flooding the market with X86 boxen these days.
-----yttrx
Roy Schestowitz
Interesting. You mentioned this before in a different context. I don't have
much experience with a variety of different databases (of different size). I
guess it shows, yet again, that COLA is a good place to learn, rather than
argue, call names, or pose (ask the trolls why they hang around here
anyway).
>>> 2. Unisys is still around?
>>
>>
>> Yes and Unisys also says that Open Source will have the same impact that
>> the Internet has had on technology. Unisys is embracing Open Source. And
>> it's not always an indication of demise or an early death knell. Sun's
>> server sales surges in the last quarter. And a lost of products are being
>> open-sourced, including hardware designs. Lastly, Ubuntu has formed a
>> special relationship with Sun and I suspect it now runs on some of their
>> servers. OpenSalaris aside... IBM claimed it is a fake gesture.
>>
>
> It does indeed run on some of their servers, but that's no fault of their
> own. Linux was ported to Sparc architecture ages ago, and besides that,
> Sun is flooding the market with X86 boxen these days.
I am slowly learning more and more about Sun. I saw the following today:
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1954636451;fp;2;fpid;3
Sun ahead in server market
Bear in mind that Yager is a bit of a Linux slagger, based on previous
writeups (articles, columns).
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=443578409&rid=-50
Sun's chief customer advocate to quit
The blog of Schwartz has been getting him some media attention recently. It's
rather unprecedented for a CEO at his level to jump past the 'PR layer' and
speak directly to the world.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "The only source is Open Source"
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 138 total, 1 running, 136 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
yttrx
I realize database preference is largely a matter of opinion, but in the
case of free database software, there's no beating Postgres. In the case
of pay-for database software, there's no beating DB2.
> I am slowly learning more and more about Sun. I saw the following today:
>
> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1954636451;fp;2;fpid;3
>
> Sun ahead in server market
>
> Bear in mind that Yager is a bit of a Linux slagger, based on previous
> writeups (articles, columns).
>
Oh its true, but I'm a bit of a linux slagger as well. I'm far from
in love with linux, but for my purposes, under particular circumstances,
Ubuntu servers me very, very well.
My last real job included the purchase and installation of Sun medium-
iron machines en masse, mostly v880s and v890s. I've always really
loved Sun medium and high-end hardware. It's just designed so WELL,
and the price is absolutely right on the mark. I don't know of another
medium-range server that incorporates hot-swappable PCI and CPU
modules.
>
> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=443578409&rid=-50
>
> Sun's chief customer advocate to quit
>
> The blog of Schwartz has been getting him some media attention recently. It's
> rather unprecedented for a CEO at his level to jump past the 'PR layer' and
> speak directly to the world.
>
Yeah, I kinda dig that, but it could mean more bad news for Sun, unfortunately.
-----yttrx
JEDIDIAH
> __/ [ yttrx ] on Tuesday 19 September 2006 12:36 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>> Open-source integration
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Unisys Corp. of Blue Bell, Pa., has signed a partnership with MySQL AB
>>> | of Sweden to incorporate the open-source MySQL database into the
>>> | integrator's own offerings and to offer MySQL support and consulting
>>> | services.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.gcn.com/print/25_28/41991-1.html
>>
>> Two points.
>>
>> 1. MySQL is a steaming pile of utterly useless shit.
>
>
> Ever considered manageing a 100KB database? The issue of growth and scale set
> aside? Affordability is what enables the Web to grow so quickly and pose
> such a low entry barrier (whether that's a good or a bad thing). *smile*
Then use a robust commercial offering that will cost you about
as much as a full license for Microsoft Office. If the database
is worth any of your time then it will certainly we worth that
meagre sum.
[deletia]
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Roy Schestowitz
> On 2006-09-19, Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> __/ [ yttrx ] on Tuesday 19 September 2006 12:36 \__
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>> Open-source integration
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Unisys Corp. of Blue Bell, Pa., has signed a partnership with MySQL AB
>>>> | of Sweden to incorporate the open-source MySQL database into the
>>>> | integrator's own offerings and to offer MySQL support and consulting
>>>> | services.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gcn.com/print/25_28/41991-1.html
>>>
>>> Two points.
>>>
>>> 1. MySQL is a steaming pile of utterly useless shit.
>>
>>
>> Ever considered manageing a 100KB database? The issue of growth and scale
>> set aside? Affordability is what enables the Web to grow so quickly and
>> pose such a low entry barrier (whether that's a good or a bad thing).
>> *smile*
>
> Then use a robust commercial offering that will cost you about
> as much as a full license for Microsoft Office. If the database
> is worth any of your time then it will certainly we worth that
> meagre sum.
>
> [deletia]
What if the stack upon which it's built (or that which sits on top) is not
transparent and requires a particular type of database. Take WordPress and
PHPBibMan, for example. Unlike some other CMS's, they actually require a
particular version of PHP and they also require MySQL. By choosing a
commercial database, you may also restrict the wealth of Free software that
is available for use.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
For governments that eavesdrop, here is a quick list of tags: Communism,
Hawaiian shirts, China, Suitcase, Martha Stewart, Encryption, Prison,
Stalin. Thanks for tuning in.
JEDIDIAH
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> __/ [ yttrx ] on Tuesday 19 September 2006 13:33 \__
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>> __/ [ yttrx ] on Tuesday 19 September 2006 12:36 \__
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Open-source integration
>> Interesting. You mentioned this before in a different context. I don't have
>> much experience with a variety of different databases (of different size). I
>> guess it shows, yet again, that COLA is a good place to learn, rather than
>> argue, call names, or pose (ask the trolls why they hang around here
>> anyway).
>>
>
> I realize database preference is largely a matter of opinion, but in the
> case of free database software, there's no beating Postgres. In the case
> of pay-for database software, there's no beating DB2.
With non-federated partitioning and active-active clustering there is.
DB2 is certainly one of the giants of the playground though...
[deletia]
--
Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to
your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens |||
rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \
affairs, government and business.
yttrx
> On 2006-09-19, yttrx <yt...@yttrx.net> wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>> __/ [ yttrx ] on Tuesday 19 September 2006 13:33 \__
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>>> __/ [ yttrx ] on Tuesday 19 September 2006 12:36 \__
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Open-source integration
> [deletia]
>>> Interesting. You mentioned this before in a different context. I don't have
>>> much experience with a variety of different databases (of different size). I
>>> guess it shows, yet again, that COLA is a good place to learn, rather than
>>> argue, call names, or pose (ask the trolls why they hang around here
>>> anyway).
>>>
>>
>> I realize database preference is largely a matter of opinion, but in the
>> case of free database software, there's no beating Postgres. In the case
>> of pay-for database software, there's no beating DB2.
>
> With non-federated partitioning and active-active clustering there is.
>
Alright, there's no beating DB2 on AIX. :)
-----yttrx
Hadron Quark
No : the real world is. You spouting nonsense and then getting corrected
by people who "know" is not "learning" - its being put right. A subtle
but important difference. It pains me to think of the amount of
misinformation you post which isnt slapped back into place because the
people who know have your voluminous NEWS posts killfiled. If you want
to learn, go and READ something relevant to the program or get a job
where you use it. Dont make things up. Or guess.
JEDIDIAH
You're TRAPPED using a particular RDBMS. How nice. That's certainly
a compelling reason to use a particular product.
An app worth running is not going to be so encumbered. It would be
foolish to trust anything of value to a product that can't manage to be
cross platform within a framework that's specifically designed to be open.
The app should at least be able to handle postgres as a backend.
The app shouldn't even be tied to a particular application server.
...as far as PHP goes: it's never been tied to mysql.
Unecessarily restricting your freedom of platform movement makes
no more sense just because the components happen to be gratis.
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
JEDIDIAH
Try mainframes and you might be onto something.
Roy Schestowitz
You are quite right. WordPress has been stuck with non-transparency--that
which makes MySQL a necessity--for quite some time. This has been raised
many times before. Not even long ago now that I recheck...
http://comox.textdrive.com/pipermail/wp-hackers/2006-March/005529.html
See "[wp-hackers] Porting Wordpress to PostgreSQL"
There are various issues and there are arguments along the lines of shift of
focus in development rigour (even WAMP is still problematic). Yes,
WordPress(.org) is now a commercial spinoff as well, run by Automattic. A
lot of momentum is geared up towards the requirements of wordpress.com. I
can think of other projects such as Gallery of phpBB where one gets
excellent DB transparency. I use MySQL for those because of my host's offer
nonetheless. Had I been asked to migrate though, the CMS would still be
'portable', and should accept whatever 'grounds' are available. On one of
the Web servers I have a Postgres option as well, but I hear mixed reviews
about it. It is said to be far more efficient when handling particular
operations, but I am still under the impression that it's not dependable.
> An app worth running is not going to be so encumbered. It would be
> foolish to trust anything of value to a product that can't manage to be
> cross platform within a framework that's specifically designed to be open.
> The app should at least be able to handle postgres as a backend.
>
> The app shouldn't even be tied to a particular application server.
>
> ...as far as PHP goes: it's never been tied to mysql.
Of course not. I wasn't trying to suggest this either. *smile* But I suppose
the popularity of the two inspired various books that make list them in
tandem and make them as assimilated as Salt and Pepper, verbally at least.
> Unecessarily restricting your freedom of platform movement makes
> no more sense just because the components happen to be gratis.
It's ironic when FOSS projects whose purpose is to encourage openness are
discriminating against and restricting choice. Look at Google. They 'extend'
standards and they product nasty 'HTML' that isn't anywhere close to being
valid.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows is 'intuitive': go to 'Start' to finish session
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 118 total, 2 running, 115 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
Tim Smith
yt...@yttrx.net (yttrx) wrote:
> 2. there's no way to take a hot dump of a running database. That means any
> time you back up a MySQL DB, there's table locking. Again, very bad.
If you use InnoDB tables, you can use mysqldump within a transaction to
dump the database without locking it.
Without InnoDB, if you have binary logging enabled, you could construct
a dump without locking tables.
--
--Tim Smith
yttrx
Those are dirty hacks, and are a terrible idea with a database of
meaningful size (say over 50 gigs) and heavy activity (say, over
two inserts per second)
-----yttrx
Geico Caveman
>> 1. MySQL is a steaming pile of utterly useless shit.
>
>
> Ever considered manageing a 100KB database? The issue of growth and scale
> set aside? Affordability is what enables the Web to grow so quickly and
> pose such a low entry barrier (whether that's a good or a bad thing).
> *smile*
How much does PostgreSQL cost ?
Roy Schestowitz
It's unfortunate that the older server of my Web host does/did not offer
PostgreSQL. It improbable that I will choose PostgreSQL over MySQL any time
soon (despite positive feedback that I have been hearing for over a year),
primarily because of habits, e.g. mysqldump cron jobs, phpmyadmin.