Re: mysql60-server??
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:59:39 -0800 Gary Kline kl...@thought.org replied: I took a class in the Ingres db suite from one of the guys who wrote it. Think that Postgress is a follow-on. It strikes me as almost a *certainty* that any commerical project could be done better by the open-source community. ---If it's got your *NAME* on it, you're going to be certain it's superior, whereas if you're coding just for a paycheck, sure, you'll do a good job. But not as outstanding as an open-source suite. The determining factor is suitability to task. Once that is determined, then cost to implement comes into play. BTW, I totally disagree with your statement regarding commercial product' vs open source and quality. If that were really true then Open Office would be equal to or superior to MS Office. In actuality, it is at best equal to Office 97, and that is even stretching the point. Commercial software is written with the end-user in mind. Commercial software that does not sell will not be around very long. On the other hand, open-source software tends to be written with the developer as the focal point with the hope that others will share their point of view. Neither philosophy is inherently superior. In the final determination the end user has to determine which meets their suitability to task requirements; whether that be cost, suitability or both. BTW, I am running mysql-server-6.0.11 on one of my PCs. It handles tables for my mail system and several other sundries. It is only under a light load; however, I have never had a single problem with it. -- Jerry ges...@yahoo.com |=== |=== |=== |=== | Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser. Dave Thomas, Strange Brew ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: mysql60-server??
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:41:06 -0500, Jerry ges...@yahoo.com wrote: BTW, I totally disagree with your statement regarding commercial product' vs open source and quality. I beg to differ. Bad software exists everywhere - in open source world as well as in the commercial sector. If that were really true then Open Office would be equal to or superior to MS Office. In actuality, it is at best equal to Office 97, and that is even stretching the point. I've worked for a long time in a cross-platform (Mac, Linux, BSD, Solaris, Windows) environment where OpenOffice has been used successfully. A MICROS~1 product couldn't work that good when it's about interoperability. There are many things modern MICROS~1 office products lag behind open software, be it interface design, conforming to standards, useful (!) functionality or operation speed. On the other hand, I admit that there are often problems in quality with open source programs, but not as you may think: I'm talking about the lack of proper documentation (try man opera and man firefox for a comparison) and insufficient attention paid to internationalisation. KDE's german language version is a good example. Sometimes, I think it's just quick quick, add more features, quick quick, and release the whole thing instead of having a result that is acceptable in every way it claims to serve. (Sidenote: I'm running all my programs in their native language, which is english, with OpenOffice being the only exception, simply because using the german variants is so unpleasant.) Commercial software is written with the end-user in mind. Haha! Very funny. :-) You meant to say, and I may correct your statement: Commercial software is written with the end-user's MONEY in mind. In order to make him buy incompatible, slow and outdated software, aggressive advertisement is used. This advertisement has taken the place of good coding, or: The worse your program is, the more money you put in advertising it's greatness. This is the way software is sold. Free software, on the other hand, isn't sold per se. It is used, and so it is created with the end-user in mind, because he doesn't give money anyway. That's quite generic, I know, but it can be summarized that way without contradicting to reality. Commercial software that does not sell will not be around very long. That's true, and a logical implication of what I said just before. On the other hand, open-source software tends to be written with the developer as the focal point with the hope that others will share their point of view. Maybe that has been the case, but it's not anymore. Maybe you're true in regards of operating systems, their interfaces and APIs, but that's logical again, because the end-user isn't interested in how to program for a certain OS, but the application developers who write the software for the end-users are - and need to be. The change of this attitude isn't new. Neither philosophy is inherently superior. Yes, I agree. In the final determination the end user has to determine which meets their suitability to task requirements; whether that be cost, suitability or both. That's the problem: The tasks are adjusted to fit the software currently in use (or promised to to come out soon). Educated judgement, sadly, isn't one of the strengths of the average PC user. PC on, brain off is a setting you find more often than you'd like to. In the past, I have mostly used free software, but some commercial products, too, e. g. Solaris and IRIX (and HP-UX for some special cases), and they served well in the places they were intended to use. I would not claim that free software serves better than commercial software in general, because this often depends on supporting various hardware, and we all know that the hardware vendors still are focused on a monopoly of Windows and don't care for other operating systems because they don't exist. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
mysql60-server??
kwik one: in his build-server stuff [6.2], jon horne said to use mysql50-server. i see the latest is mysql60 should i go ahead and use the latest mysql database? or just do as the instruction say? tia... y'all. -- Gary Kline kl...@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org The 7.31a release of Jottings: http://jottings.thought.org/index.php ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: mysql60-server??
Gary Kline wrote: kwik one: in his build-server stuff [6.2], jon horne said to use mysql50-server. i see the latest is mysql60 should i go ahead and use the latest mysql database? or just do as the instruction say? tia... y'all. There are 4 versions of MySQL currently available. In reverse order of age: mysql60 -- this is early beta quality (read: it may eat your data) and was the vehicle for MySQL to introduce various new table engines in an attempt to ensure their independence from Oracle. However, Sun bought MySQL and Oracle is in the process of buying Sun. Oracle also previously bought Innobase (makers of InnoDB) and Sleepycat (writers of Berkeley DB) so suddenly all of the current engine types are suddenly back in the picture: hence mysql54 -- an incremental upgrade on mysql51. Late beta quality, good for experimenters and developers, but not yet something that should be considered for mission critical applications Prior to that we have: mysql51 -- MySQL's current GA (generally available) release offering. It's got a number of new features like stored procedures but depending on your workloads it may or may not be faster than... mysql50 -- The previous GA version, and still the most widely deployed version at the moment. It is still being actively maintained even if it is pretty much down-played on MySQL's website. This is a version that has been in all sorts of production use for years and pretty thoroughly debugged, hence a very safe choice. In summary: choose either of mysql50 or mysql51 according to preference or your particular requirements. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mysql60-server??
Matthew Seaman wrote: Gary Kline wrote: kwik one: in his build-server stuff [6.2], jon horne said to use mysql50-server. i see the latest is mysql60 should i go ahead and use the latest mysql database? or just do as the instruction say? [snip] Prior to that we have: mysql51 -- MySQL's current GA (generally available) release offering. It's got a number of new features like stored procedures but depending on your workloads it may or may not be faster than... mysql50 -- The previous GA version, and still the most widely deployed version at the moment. It is still being actively maintained even if it is pretty much down-played on MySQL's website. This is a version that has been in all sorts of production use for years and pretty thoroughly debugged, hence a very safe choice. In summary: choose either of mysql50 or mysql51 according to preference or your particular requirements. A lot of people are still using 50 and many consider it faster than 51. I think the main difference performance wise is 51 might have a tad heavier thread handling performance for the latest and greatest high end quad socket quad core boxen. 50 may offer better performance on older more down level commodity boxen. I've been running 51 for a quite a while now and haven't had any trouble with it, but I'm not hammering it either. If the hardware isn't quite up to snuff 50 may actually be a better choice, especially in the scenario where web and database are running on the same, albeit slower machine. Another factor in the decision might be to consider when EOL may be scheduled. -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: mysql60-server??
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 07:16:41PM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: There are 4 versions of MySQL currently available. In reverse order of age: mysql60 -- this is early beta quality (read: it may eat your data) and was the vehicle for MySQL to introduce various new table engines in an attempt to ensure their independence from Oracle. However, Sun bought MySQL and Oracle is in the process of buying Sun. Oracle also previously bought Innobase (makers of InnoDB) and Sleepycat (writers of Berkeley DB) so suddenly all of the current engine types are suddenly back in the picture: hence Thanks for the heads-up, MAtthew. I'm much too slow to get all the machinations re which corporation is diddling which corporation or other entity (like us). Did not know that mysql was actually owned by Sun. I'd ask if there are any free and open databases, but what db stuff I have is invested heavily with mysql. So v 60 is out. Do you know, off-chance, which versions are actively being hacked on? Nothing mission critical--yet--but I think v51 is the best bet for now. gary PS: to the powers-that-be: shouldn't these datapoints be make public front/center somewhere in ports or elsewhere that everyone can see? Save bandwidth... . This is going in my ~/.Notes file... . mysql54 -- an incremental upgrade on mysql51. Late beta quality, good for experimenters and developers, but not yet something that should be considered for mission critical applications Prior to that we have: mysql51 -- MySQL's current GA (generally available) release offering. It's got a number of new features like stored procedures but depending on your workloads it may or may not be faster than... mysql50 -- The previous GA version, and still the most widely deployed version at the moment. It is still being actively maintained even if it is pretty much down-played on MySQL's website. This is a version that has been in all sorts of production use for years and pretty thoroughly debugged, hence a very safe choice. In summary: choose either of mysql50 or mysql51 according to preference or your particular requirements. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW -- Gary Kline kl...@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org The 7.31a release of Jottings: http://jottings.thought.org/index.php ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: mysql60-server??
Gary Kline wrote: Thanks for the heads-up, MAtthew. I'm much too slow to get all the machinations re which corporation is diddling which corporation or other entity (like us). Did not know that mysql was actually owned by Sun. I'd ask if there are any free and open databases, but what db stuff I have is invested heavily with mysql. So v 60 is out. Do you know, off-chance, which versions are actively being hacked on? Nothing mission critical--yet--but I think v51 is the best bet for now. Well, what will eventually happen to MySQL is as yet unclear. It's too popular and too widespread for Oracle to just kill it, so my best guess is that they'll keep it on as an open source type project, but they'll treat it as a means of getting in the door to try and sell Oracle support in a lot of places. Which implies that any technology transfer will be mostly from MySQL to Oracle and precious little in the other direction, so that the commercial version of Oracle will maintain a technological edge. In the mean time, a bunch of die-hard MySQL people have forked a new instantiation of that project which isn't under the same commercial constraints: see http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/MariaDB Active development is mostly occurring on MySQL 5.1 and 5.4 -- not sure where 6.0 is going although they did have plenty of development goals other than 'not get borged by Oracle'. But of course, there is the technically better, almost certainly faster at real world tasks, but less optimised for noddy benchmarks option: PostgreSQL. It's BSD licenced, and while there are commercially supported variants, the core development team and the intellectual property are not structured in a way to put them at any risk of being gobbled up by some mega-corporation. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mysql60-server??
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 02:33:11PM -0500, Michael Powell wrote: Matthew Seaman wrote: Gary Kline wrote: kwik one: in his build-server stuff [6.2], jon horne said to use mysql50-server. i see the latest is mysql60 should i go ahead and use the latest mysql database? or just do as the instruction say? [snip] Prior to that we have: mysql51 -- MySQL's current GA (generally available) release offering. It's got a number of new features like stored procedures but depending on your workloads it may or may not be faster than... mysql50 -- The previous GA version, and still the most widely deployed version at the moment. It is still being actively maintained even if it is pretty much down-played on MySQL's website. This is a version that has been in all sorts of production use for years and pretty thoroughly debugged, hence a very safe choice. In summary: choose either of mysql50 or mysql51 according to preference or your particular requirements. A lot of people are still using 50 and many consider it faster than 51. I think the main difference performance wise is 51 might have a tad heavier thread handling performance for the latest and greatest high end quad socket quad core boxen. 50 may offer better performance on older more down level commodity boxen. I've been running 51 for a quite a while now and haven't had any trouble with it, but I'm not hammering it either. If the hardware isn't quite up to snuff 50 may actually be a better choice, especially in the scenario where web and database are running on the same, albeit slower machine. Another factor in the decision might be to consider when EOL may be scheduled. -Mike good to know. thanks for the input! gary -- Gary Kline kl...@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix Misfortune doesn't improve anyone. That is a fable to reassure the afflicted. A life of hardship humiliates man and forces him to expend all his energy on resisting its deadly pressure. If a man comes out of it improved, it only means that he has spent an enormous amount of energy on improving in spite of everything. Just think what he might have done without that pressure. --Jiri Mucha, *Living and Partly Living* ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: mysql60-server??
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:21:37PM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: Gary Kline wrote: Thanks for the heads-up, MAtthew. I'm much too slow to get all the machinations re which corporation is diddling which corporation or other entity (like us). Did not know that mysql was actually owned by Sun. I'd ask if there are any free and open databases, but what db stuff I have is invested heavily with mysql. So v 60 is out. Do you know, off-chance, which versions are actively being hacked on? Nothing mission critical--yet--but I think v51 is the best bet for now. Well, what will eventually happen to MySQL is as yet unclear. It's too popular and too widespread for Oracle to just kill it, so my best guess is that they'll keep it on as an open source type project, but they'll treat it as a means of getting in the door to try and sell Oracle support in a lot of places. Which implies that any technology transfer will be mostly from MySQL to Oracle and precious little in the other direction, so that the commercial version of Oracle will maintain a technological edge. In the mean time, a bunch of die-hard MySQL people have forked a new instantiation of that project which isn't under the same commercial constraints: see http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/MariaDB Good to know. THere was one IBM suite that a whole university here took over and produced a clone. I used the clone and it was sold, open-source work. Eventually, ol 'BM make their stuff open and free. Fine. Active development is mostly occurring on MySQL 5.1 and 5.4 -- not sure where 6.0 is going although they did have plenty of development goals other than 'not get borged by Oracle'. But of course, there is the technically better, almost certainly faster at real world tasks, but less optimised for noddy benchmarks option: PostgreSQL. It's BSD licenced, and while there are commercially supported variants, the core development team and the intellectual property are not structured in a way to put them at any risk of being gobbled up by some mega-corporation. I took a class in the Ingres db suite from one of the guys who wrote it. Think that Postgress is a follow-on. It strikes me as almost a *certainty* that any commerical project could be done better by the open-source community. ---If it's got your *NAME* on it, you're going to be certain it's superior, whereas if you're coding just for a paycheck, sure, you'll do a good job. But not as outstanding as an open-source suite. gary Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW -- Gary Kline kl...@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix Misfortune doesn't improve anyone. That is a fable to reassure the afflicted. A life of hardship humiliates man and forces him to expend all his energy on resisting its deadly pressure. If a man comes out of it improved, it only means that he has spent an enormous amount of energy on improving in spite of everything. Just think what he might have done without that pressure. --Jiri Mucha, *Living and Partly Living* ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
