erServer beta
Hi all,
Does anyone know if the erServer beta is still available from the
PostgreSQL Inc. website?
I can't seem to find it, only the rserv version.
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
everything that is currently available is actually in contrib right now
... Thomas is currently working on tools for it, but nothing ready for
even beta testing yet ..
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Justin Clift wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone know if the erServer beta is still available from the
PostgreSQL Inc. website?I can't seem to find it, only the rserv version.
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
At 4/15/01 3:20 PM, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:
everything that is currently available is actually in contrib right now
... Thomas is currently working on tools for it, but nothing ready for
even beta testing yet ..
Hmmm? At http://www.erserver.com/, there's a page that starts off:
"eRServer was released for Beta on December 24, 2000."
And then it has links to download eRServer tools from the pgsql.com site.
Is this different from what's in the contrib directory? I've never quite
been able to get straight in my head whether eRServer is an Open Source
project, or whether it's initially closed source and planned to be
released as Open Source later, or what; there was lots of confusing talk
about it a while back (confused me, anyway).
Can someone in the know give us a definite explanation of what kind of
project eRServer is, how it's going to be developed, what its current
state is, etc.? I really could use replication, but it doesn't seem clear
whether the eRServer stuff is going be further developed in a way that I
could use (what's there is somewhat unpolished so far, although the
initial effort is appreciated).
--
Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
The short and simple of it is that what has currently been developed is in
/contrib ... we will not release anything into the Open Source until we
*at least* have a running release and package, which is when we put
erserver into /contrib ...
Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded it
... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a
client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to do
something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and Open
Sourcing it would detract from that ...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Robert L Mathews wrote:
At 4/15/01 3:20 PM, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:
everything that is currently available is actually in contrib right now
... Thomas is currently working on tools for it, but nothing ready for
even beta testing yet ..Hmmm? At http://www.erserver.com/, there's a page that starts off:
"eRServer was released for Beta on December 24, 2000."
And then it has links to download eRServer tools from the pgsql.com site.
Is this different from what's in the contrib directory? I've never quite
been able to get straight in my head whether eRServer is an Open Source
project, or whether it's initially closed source and planned to be
released as Open Source later, or what; there was lots of confusing talk
about it a while back (confused me, anyway).Can someone in the know give us a definite explanation of what kind of
project eRServer is, how it's going to be developed, what its current
state is, etc.? I really could use replication, but it doesn't seem clear
whether the eRServer stuff is going be further developed in a way that I
could use (what's there is somewhat unpolished so far, although the
initial effort is appreciated).--
Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:38:36AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded it
... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a
client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to do
something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and Open
Sourcing it would detract from that ...
Not necessarily. There is a long history of paying for software
development, not because you want it to horde, but because you want it
to exist. Happens all the time in the GNU camp, and with certain
FreeBSD projects.
If/when we "fund" Postgres development, for example, it would remain free.
--
Christopher Masto Senior Software Engineer Intelligence Technologies
chris@netmonger.net http://www.inteltec.com
Free yourself, free your machine, free the daemon -- http://www.freebsd.org/
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Christopher Masto wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:38:36AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded it
... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a
client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to do
something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and Open
Sourcing it would detract from that ...Not necessarily. There is a long history of paying for software
development, not because you want it to horde, but because you want it
to exist. Happens all the time in the GNU camp, and with certain
FreeBSD projects.If/when we "fund" Postgres development, for example, it would remain free.
Correct, and understood ... our *policy* is to encourage clients to go
that direction, as well, but its ultimately their decision. If we had
unlimited funding, everything we'd do would be Open Source, as we'd not
*need* clients to pay for that development ...
You throw out 'the GNU camp' and 'certain FreeBSD projects' ... can you
not name companies that actively participate in both camps, but distribute
proprietary, Closed Source software?
First one off the top of my head: nVidia ... make fantastic video cards,
its all I'll run ... I run on FreeBSD, so right now can't use the 3D stuff
under X, because their drivers are proprietary and closed ... Linux'rs do
have access to these drivers though, cause nVidia was willing to take the
time to *at least* make binaries available to the community. They keep
their competitive advantage by not releasing the source code to the
drivers, but they give back to the community by providing the drivers to
use in our "Open Source" environments ...
*shrug* IMHO, there is a place for both in this world ...
At 4/15/01 10:38 PM, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
The short and simple of it is that what has currently been developed is in
/contrib ... we will not release anything into the Open Source until we
*at least* have a running release and package, which is when we put
erserver into /contrib ...
OK, but I guess I'm being dense, because I still don't get it. If the
current version of replication is in /contrib, and you're saying it's not
yet ready for beta, then what is the stuff at http://www.erserver.com/
that says it's in beta? Are we talking about two totally different
things? If so, are there any notable differences between them?
Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded it
... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a
client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to do
something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and Open
Sourcing it would detract from that ...
Sure, of course. I'm just having difficulty figuring out which category
eRServer is in.
I've read the press release, and it implies eRServer is a combination of
Open and Closed source. If that's the case, it would helpful to know
what's Open Source and what's not (for example, is the current state of
the eRServer code the full extent of the intended Open Source
development, with future improvements being Closed Source for the
forseeable future?).
--
Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
Hi Rob,
If you want an initial place for it on the Net for people to see it, I'd
be happy to make one on the techdocs.postgresql.org website, as
replication is quite a useful thing.
Alternatively, registering it on SourceForge as an Open Source project
(be very choosy about the Open Source license you pick!) might be the
best way of going about co-operatively having it developed.
Probably other alternatives too.
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
Rob Arnold wrote:
I have some beta, row level replication stuff that I'm willing to share
under open source. It doesn't know about foreign keys and such at this
point, but it works OK on plain old tables. Let me know if you want a copy.
The upside is that it can do bi-directional synchronization too.--rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy@hub.org>
To: "Christopher Masto" <chris@netmonger.net>
Cc: "Robert L Mathews" <lists@tigertech.com>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Re: erServer betaOn Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Christopher Masto wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:38:36AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded
it
... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a
client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us todo
something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and
Open
Sourcing it would detract from that ...
Not necessarily. There is a long history of paying for software
development, not because you want it to horde, but because you want it
to exist. Happens all the time in the GNU camp, and with certain
FreeBSD projects.If/when we "fund" Postgres development, for example, it would remain
free.
Correct, and understood ... our *policy* is to encourage clients to go
that direction, as well, but its ultimately their decision. If we had
unlimited funding, everything we'd do would be Open Source, as we'd not
*need* clients to pay for that development ...You throw out 'the GNU camp' and 'certain FreeBSD projects' ... can you
not name companies that actively participate in both camps, but distribute
proprietary, Closed Source software?First one off the top of my head: nVidia ... make fantastic video cards,
its all I'll run ... I run on FreeBSD, so right now can't use the 3D stuff
under X, because their drivers are proprietary and closed ... Linux'rs do
have access to these drivers though, cause nVidia was willing to take the
time to *at least* make binaries available to the community. They keep
their competitive advantage by not releasing the source code to the
drivers, but they give back to the community by providing the drivers to
use in our "Open Source" environments ...*shrug* IMHO, there is a place for both in this world ...
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
I have some beta, row level replication stuff that I'm willing to share
under open source. It doesn't know about foreign keys and such at this
point, but it works OK on plain old tables. Let me know if you want a copy.
The upside is that it can do bi-directional synchronization too.
--rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy@hub.org>
To: "Christopher Masto" <chris@netmonger.net>
Cc: "Robert L Mathews" <lists@tigertech.com>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Re: erServer beta
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Christopher Masto wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:38:36AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded
it
... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a
client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to
do
something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and
Open
Sourcing it would detract from that ...
Not necessarily. There is a long history of paying for software
development, not because you want it to horde, but because you want it
to exist. Happens all the time in the GNU camp, and with certain
FreeBSD projects.If/when we "fund" Postgres development, for example, it would remain
free.
Show quoted text
Correct, and understood ... our *policy* is to encourage clients to go
that direction, as well, but its ultimately their decision. If we had
unlimited funding, everything we'd do would be Open Source, as we'd not
*need* clients to pay for that development ...You throw out 'the GNU camp' and 'certain FreeBSD projects' ... can you
not name companies that actively participate in both camps, but distribute
proprietary, Closed Source software?First one off the top of my head: nVidia ... make fantastic video cards,
its all I'll run ... I run on FreeBSD, so right now can't use the 3D stuff
under X, because their drivers are proprietary and closed ... Linux'rs do
have access to these drivers though, cause nVidia was willing to take the
time to *at least* make binaries available to the community. They keep
their competitive advantage by not releasing the source code to the
drivers, but they give back to the community by providing the drivers to
use in our "Open Source" environments ...*shrug* IMHO, there is a place for both in this world ...