PostgreSQL - the Linux of Databases...
I just finally got a copy of that article in Linux Journal (wow, they even
spelt my name right!)...I think the first paragraph, in itself, is most
comical:
"...it is now developed similarly to Linux"
Now, those that have been around here for *any* stretch of time know that
we aren't even *remotely* close to the way that Linux is being developed,
with those having suggested us doing that having it, I would imagine, dug
in quite deeply :)
Still have to read the whole article, but so far (other then that one
"slight" in the first paragraph *bait material here*), it looks pretty
good :)
I just finally got a copy of that article in Linux Journal (wow, they even
spelt my name right!)...I think the first paragraph, in itself, is most
comical:"...it is now developed similarly to Linux"
Now, those that have been around here for *any* stretch of time know that
we aren't even *remotely* close to the way that Linux is being developed,
with those having suggested us doing that having it, I would imagine, dug
in quite deeply :)Still have to read the whole article, but so far (other then that one
"slight" in the first paragraph *bait material here*), it looks pretty
good :)
It's OK Marc, us linux'ists weren't offended _too_ much by that quote :))
fwiw, I think he was drawing an analogy with the whole web/net thing, ya
know, as opposed to the floppy disk mailings you BSDers use *ducks head*
- Tom
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
It's OK Marc, us linux'ists weren't offended _too_ much by that quote :))
I'm such a trouble maker, but I find most Linux'ers such easy easy
prey *grin* I have this University full of Linux'ers that you can spark
up just with a comment like "Linux != Unix"...which, it isn't, its a
Unix-like clone...but they can't seem to figure the distinction *rofl*
fwiw, I think he was drawing an analogy with the whole web/net thing, ya
know, as opposed to the floppy disk mailings you BSDers use *ducks head*
*hrmmm*?? floppy disk maillings? Now, which camp came up with
CVSup again? *raised eyebrows* We have up to the minute access to any
kernel changes...and you guys? How often? *grin*
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
I just finally got a copy of that article in Linux Journal (wow, they even
spelt my name right!)...I think the first paragraph, in itself, is most
comical:"...it is now developed similarly to Linux"
Now, those that have been around here for *any* stretch of time know that
we aren't even *remotely* close to the way that Linux is being developed,
with those having suggested us doing that having it, I would imagine, dug
in quite deeply :)Still have to read the whole article, but so far (other then that one
"slight" in the first paragraph *bait material here*), it looks pretty
good :)It's OK Marc, us linux'ists weren't offended _too_ much by that quote :))
fwiw, I think he was drawing an analogy with the whole web/net thing, ya
know, as opposed to the floppy disk mailings you BSDers use *ducks head*
From what I understand, postgres development is more like BSD
development than it it like linux development. With Linux kernels,
new versions may come out two in one day. With BSD, there are periods
of internal development followed by a big release. Postgres has the
daily snapshot, but these are intended for developers, and each new
one is not considered a new version of the program.
In that Postgres is developed over the net by a volunteer effort, I
would say they are similar.
Ocie Mitchell
Marc wrote...
I just finally got a copy of that article in Linux Journal (wow, they even
spelt my name right!)...I think the first paragraph, in itself, is most
comical:"...it is now developed similarly to Linux"
....collapses on the floor at the thought of Marc even *looking* at a journal
with the word Linux in the name. I'm sure he didn't hand over any money for
it!
Andrew (only teasing...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Andrew C.R. Martin University College London
EMAIL: (Work) martin@biochem.ucl.ac.uk (Home) andrew@stagleys.demon.co.uk
URL: http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/~martin
Tel: (Work) +44(0)171 419 3890 (Home) +44(0)1372 275775
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
Marc wrote...
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
It's OK Marc, us linux'ists weren't offended _too_ much by that quote :))
I'm such a trouble maker, but I find most Linux'ers such easy easy
prey *grin* I have this University full of Linux'ers
I wonder why there are SO MANY Linux'ers? :-)
that you can spark
up just with a comment like "Linux != Unix"...which, it isn't, its a
Unix-like clone...but they can't seem to figure the distinction *rofl*
Agreed... :-) But BSD isn't Unix either - not officially. [Waits for
Marc to disagree, again...]
Not to mention the fact that at least one release of Linux did go through
full Posix certification and is thus allowed to be called Unix :-)
Andrew
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Andrew C.R. Martin University College London
EMAIL: (Work) martin@biochem.ucl.ac.uk (Home) andrew@stagleys.demon.co.uk
URL: http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/~martin
Tel: (Work) +44(0)171 419 3890 (Home) +44(0)1372 275775
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
Thus spake Andrew Martin
up just with a comment like "Linux != Unix"...which, it isn't, its a
Unix-like clone...but they can't seem to figure the distinction *rofl*Agreed... :-) But BSD isn't Unix either - not officially. [Waits for
Marc to disagree, again...]
Of course it is. It has direct lineage back the Bell Labs. There is
no AT&T code left in but you can most definitely say "BSD Unix" where
you can't say "Linux Unix." For many years Berkeley was the main
development hotbed for Unix. In fact, BSD was eventually fed back
into SVR4.
Not to mention the fact that at least one release of Linux did go through
full Posix certification and is thus allowed to be called Unix :-)
Posix != Unix. NT is a Posix system. So is OpenVMS.
BTW, which version of Linux was Posix certified and who paid for it?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Andrew Martin wrote:
Marc wrote...
I just finally got a copy of that article in Linux Journal (wow, they even
spelt my name right!)...I think the first paragraph, in itself, is most
comical:"...it is now developed similarly to Linux"
....collapses on the floor at the thought of Marc even *looking* at a journal
with the word Linux in the name. I'm sure he didn't hand over any money for
it!
Wait? Someone actually *paid* for this magazie? *shocked look*
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Andrew Martin wrote:
Marc wrote...
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
It's OK Marc, us linux'ists weren't offended _too_ much by that quote :))
I'm such a trouble maker, but I find most Linux'ers such easy easy
prey *grin* I have this University full of Linux'ersI wonder why there are SO MANY Linux'ers? :-)
Actually, I don't...Linux had a much quicker start into the Free
market...the *BSD crowd had to content with the almost year(?) of legal
deliberations as to whether or not they were even allowed to distribute
and work on it :( Linux had no such problems, since Linux had no
history...no roots :)
Agreed... :-) But BSD isn't Unix either - not officially. [Waits for
Marc to disagree, again...]
I believing the only "official" Unix is the one produced by the
company that this year has decided it wants to own the name, isn't it? :)
Not to mention the fact that at least one release of Linux did go through
full Posix certification and is thus allowed to be called Unix :-)
Actually, my understanding is that its allowed to be called a
Posix-compliant Operating System... :)
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Thus spake Andrew Martin
up just with a comment like "Linux != Unix"...which, it isn't, its a
Unix-like clone...but they can't seem to figure the distinction *rofl*Agreed... :-) But BSD isn't Unix either - not officially. [Waits for
Marc to disagree, again...]Of course it is. It has direct lineage back the Bell Labs. There is
no AT&T code left in but you can most definitely say "BSD Unix" where
you can't say "Linux Unix." For many years Berkeley was the main
development hotbed for Unix. In fact, BSD was eventually fed back
into SVR4.
What he said *scrambles to save this for next time*
Not to mention the fact that at least one release of Linux did go through
full Posix certification and is thus allowed to be called Unix :-)Posix != Unix. NT is a Posix system. So is OpenVMS.
BTW, which version of Linux was Posix certified and who paid for it?
Ummmm, I don't know the version, but I do know that this was the
case...whether they stayed Posix certified or not is another story, but I
do remember this...
Thus spake Andrew Martin
up just with a comment like "Linux != Unix"...which, it isn't, its a
Unix-like clone...but they can't seem to figure the distinction *rofl*Agreed... :-) But BSD isn't Unix either - not officially. [Waits for
Marc to disagree, again...]Of course it is. It has direct lineage back the Bell Labs. There is
no AT&T code left in but you can most definitely say "BSD Unix" where
you can't say "Linux Unix." For many years Berkeley was the main
development hotbed for Unix. In fact, BSD was eventually fed back
into SVR4.
'fraid it isn't. Unix is a trademark and can only be applied to systems
which the trademark owner approves. Just 'cos the code has a certain
heritage doesn't mean that the current version is approved. There is
a FAQ somewhere which discusses all the issues - I forget the details.
Not to mention the fact that at least one release of Linux did go through
full Posix certification and is thus allowed to be called Unix :-)Posix != Unix. NT is a Posix system. So is OpenVMS.
True - I was over zealous there. However the release was given approval for
the Unix label to be applied.
BTW, which version of Linux was Posix certified and who paid for it?
It was Linux-FT - I believe the company producing it is now defunct :-(
Andrew
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Andrew C.R. Martin University College London
EMAIL: (Work) martin@biochem.ucl.ac.uk (Home) andrew@stagleys.demon.co.uk
URL: http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/~martin
Tel: (Work) +44(0)171 419 3890 (Home) +44(0)1372 275775
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
What he said *scrambles to save this for next time*
I can not belive this thing... :-) Hey, guys, you had a tough time doing
6.3, right ?
Now that you all said your necessary rant on the Linux vs. Others thing,
please calm down b4 I join the thread :-) (oops, I think I just did)
Cristian
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Gafton -- gafton@redhat.com -- Red Hat Software, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Cristian Gafton wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
What he said *scrambles to save this for next time*
I can not belive this thing... :-) Hey, guys, you had a tough time doing
6.3, right ?Now that you all said your necessary rant on the Linux vs. Others thing,
please calm down b4 I join the thread :-) (oops, I think I just did)
You joined much much too late though...this has been going on
since, oh, day one :) And, most ppl involved in the rant know me and my
opinions (they aren't necessarily the same as what I use as my bait, of
course, but ya gotta admit, Linux'ers are just soooooooo easy to bait
*grin*)
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Cristian Gafton wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
What he said *scrambles to save this for next time*
I can not belive this thing... :-) Hey, guys, you had a tough time doing
6.3, right ?Now that you all said your necessary rant on the Linux vs. Others thing,
please calm down b4 I join the thread :-) (oops, I think I just did)You joined much much too late though...this has been going on
since, oh, day one :) And, most ppl involved in the rant know me and my
opinions (they aren't necessarily the same as what I use as my bait, of
course, but ya gotta admit, Linux'ers are just soooooooo easy to bait
*grin*)
Well if Linux'ers _and_ BSD'ers ran a real os, maybe this thread would die.
There, _that's_ bait. :)
darrenk
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Andrew Martin wrote:
Marc wrote...
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
[clipa-clipa]
that you can spark
up just with a comment like "Linux != Unix"...which, it isn't, its a
Unix-like clone...but they can't seem to figure the distinction *rofl*Agreed... :-) But BSD isn't Unix either - not officially. [Waits for
Marc to disagree, again...]
Nope - I'm not even sure SCO Open Server is UNIX - and afaik THEY now own
the trademark papers.
Be VERY happy that neither Linux nor BSD is a "real" unix. Those systems
are seriously restrictive and clumsy (I suspect SCO is close - sorry, I've
had to do a lot of tech-service work on SCO systems recently. Not even
Solaris is _THAT_ bad... (close though). Guess I just miss my GNU and BSD
tools too much *grin*)
if you were just to talk about programs, Linux is a superset of
everything (except Irix at this time). If you were to talk about
networking, BSD is the standard that Linux follows. Who wants STREAMS
anyways? If you're talking API interface (and here's where I bate
non-glibc users), GLIBC-2 is the standard for Unix98+. (I still don't see
why postgres doesn't support it... though I haven't gotten around to
writing a patch (or looking recently)...).
Not to mention the fact that at least one release of Linux did go through
full Posix certification and is thus allowed to be called Unix :-)
*heh*
Just being a nard...
G'day, eh? :)
- Teunis
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, teunis wrote:
If you were to talk about
networking, BSD is the standard that Linux follows.
And follows badly, last I heard...Linux's networking support
doesn't perform as well as *BSDs, and, last I heard, has been rewritten
from scratch 3 times in the past 6 years or so...
Who wants STREAMS
anyways? If you're talking API interface (and here's where I bate
non-glibc users), GLIBC-2 is the standard for Unix98+. (I still don't see
why postgres doesn't support it... though I haven't gotten around to
writing a patch (or looking recently)...).
Key reason why we don't support it...nobody except for Linux
currently is using it...
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
non-glibc users), GLIBC-2 is the standard for Unix98+. (I still don't see
why postgres doesn't support it... though I haven't gotten around to
writing a patch (or looking recently)...).
*sigh* Postgres runs just fine on a bug-free version of glibc2. We've heard
rumors that 2.0.7-pre1 from Debian is close enough, but I can't duplicate that
on my RH5.0 production box with Cristian's RH glibc2-2.0.7 package.
btw Cristian, that library in /home/gafton has most files labeled as 2.0.6; is
that expected or are there possibly some more patches available? I tried
installing on my RH5.0 production system and still see the
select '1 min'::timespan;
problem. Haven't had any luck picking out the math code and duplicating the
problem in a 10 line program yet either :(
Also, v6.3 has some extensive new documentation which you will want to get
into /usr/doc, including 4 hardcopy and html manuals. There is a Makefile in
the source doc/ distribution to extract them. Let me know if you want more
details.
- Tom
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
And follows badly, last I heard...Linux's networking support
doesn't perform as well as *BSDs, and, last I heard, has been rewritten
from scratch 3 times in the past 6 years or so...
You're right about the rewrite thing. You're quite wrong about the
benchmarks, though. Linux's tcp/ip stack is known to be _now_ the fastest
around re: internal latency. But there are things that are balancing this
when compared with *BSD. Things like Linux's nfs server which sucks big
time or sockets creation time which only got better in the development
releases.
Things are relative. But again, when you say that it was rewritten so many
times in the last 6 years you have to remember the Linux is barely six
years old :-)
Cristian
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Gafton -- gafton@redhat.com -- Red Hat Software, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
btw Cristian, that library in /home/gafton has most files labeled as 2.0.6; is
that expected or are there possibly some more patches available? I tried
installing on my RH5.0 production system and still see the
I am doing a new one with lots of more patches included. Watch that
directory...
Also, v6.3 has some extensive new documentation which you will want to get
into /usr/doc, including 4 hardcopy and html manuals. There is a Makefile in
Already done that. Check out the new packages.
Cristian
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Gafton -- gafton@redhat.com -- Red Hat Software, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
Thus spake Andrew Martin
Of course it is. It has direct lineage back the Bell Labs. There is
no AT&T code left in but you can most definitely say "BSD Unix" where
you can't say "Linux Unix." For many years Berkeley was the main
development hotbed for Unix. In fact, BSD was eventually fed back
into SVR4.'fraid it isn't. Unix is a trademark and can only be applied to systems
which the trademark owner approves. Just 'cos the code has a certain
heritage doesn't mean that the current version is approved. There is
a FAQ somewhere which discusses all the issues - I forget the details.
Sure, sure. It isn't Unix if there's a liar^H^H^Hawyer in the room
but we know who it's parents are.
BTW, which version of Linux was Posix certified and who paid for it?
It was Linux-FT - I believe the company producing it is now defunct :-(
Figures. Perhaps they should have spent their money elsewhere. I don't
know anyone personally who is really impressed with Posix certification.
Those who really understand know that it is meaningless and those that
don't could care less. There's only a small constituency somewhere in
the middle there that think it is important and they aren't buying
anything that has any hint of "free" about it.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
