Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Oracle also owns MySQL, as a result of acquiring Sun, and there was concern in MySQL circles about Oracle trying to kill it off. I'm not too worried: the folks who use MySQL in the first place wouldn't be likely to go with Oracle instead, for cost reasons if nothing else, and MySQL is open source. If Oracle tried to kill it, the most likely result would be a fork of the last open source code and a new product under a new name carrying on where it left off.
|
That was a concern of mine as well; I did not one but 2 articles to that effect on my site (also stressing about the tightening use of Java). Incidentally, just read that Oracle bought the company that makes InnoDB back in 2005; that's where that connection probably comes in.
MySQL as former Sun IP might be Oracle-owned but the source is still GNU GPL'ed, at least for those of us who don't use it on an enterprise level, and it was never really meant for that in the first place (though it scales up surprisingly well, being used by no less than Facebook and Wikipedia). A few forks of MySQL are already in production such as MariaDB which was started by the same guy who founded MySQL (back when it was a standalone company before Sun took it over).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
The problem is "What's an RDBMS?"...Use of SQL as a query language does not an RDBMS make.
|
When it's a relational DB? A database that groups tables, fields etc by a particular attribute (i.e. how one table relates to another). RDBMS is the software which enables us to access and work with (i.e. manage) the data. That's my Alex Trebek answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
I'm in the beginning stages of learning this stuff myself.
|
My hunch is you'll love it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
I just started wondering when I discovered the default file type in MySQL was ISAM how truly relational it was, and what InnoDB might offer that MyISAM doesn't. For the sorts of stuff MySQL gets used for, it doesn't seem to have made
a real difference, and for the real Big Mutha projects where you're managing terabytes of data, Oracle may be the only realistic solution, but it's still a worthy question. There are lots of database products out there. MySQL has the majority of the web based market, but you've got things like Postgresql and Firebird in the open source world, and there are still a few Oracle competitors out there like IBM's DB2, Sybase, and SQL Server.
|
From what I'm finding it's a question of horsepower, really: ISAM is non-relational but faster and easier on resources, and InnoDB is the opposite, which is not to say it's a bad performer (I haven't used it myself but I may invent a reason just to find out).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Yep. I was never all that fond of csh (I preferred the Bourne/Korn shell), but I grew to actually like vi, once I understood the design concepts. Bill talked in an interview back when about trying to create a full screen editor that was usable over the 300 baud dial up modem connection he had from his dorm to the system he was working on, and a lot of vi makes more sense when viewed in that light - minimize what the user has to type to perform actions, and optimize screen updates for low bandwidth.
|
BASH FTW. Also, I can see why things are the way they are in vi, but even though I come from a pre-mouse, pre-GUI era I still can't justify (for myself, today) learning all the things which make it so powerful. It appears to me that most of the logic in vi is merely to enable the user to "move around" within the program instead of actually editing text; while this was a major part of the design, it feels more like a hindrance to me now and I tend to use nano any time I have the option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Novell pretty much had to get into bed with someone. Back when Noorda was running it, he acquired Word Perfect and Quattro Pro to compete with MS Word and Excel, got USL to provide an OS that could compete with NT, and already had Novell's core LAN offerings and expertise. He appeared to be trying to build a company that could compete with MS across the board, but never did meld his acquisitions into any sort of coherent whole or seem to have any long term plan about what he would do with them. Noorda got the boot, Corel got WP and Quattro, SCO got USL, and Novell was left defending a shrinking customer base and trying to reinvent itself.
|
They're still trying to reinvent themselves; if I was a betting man I'd say watch for a takeover/buyout of Novell within the next 12 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Assuming you can figure out what that is. Too much these days seems to take the form of Microsoft's "Shove it down the market's throat and do lots of marketing to convince them they want it."
|
MS has no need to be that forceful on the desktop; they will in a few years however, unless they can come up with some serious innovation (preferably without ripping off open-source). On the enterprise front, they're pretty much sunk except for the fact that corporations tend to move more slowly when it comes to technology adoption.
Steve Jobs on the other hand appears to be able to sell a Hefty bag to a Greenpeace member.