Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot discussion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > huh? all i do is './configure;make;make install' ... > > And what about CVS? Have you changed the CVSROOT since it was changed between 7.0.0 and 7.0.2? My nightly CVS mirrors have worked perfectly for a long time -- that is, once I got the CVSROOT change properly done. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot discussion
On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 08:40:27PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Graeme Merrall wrote:
>
> >
> > > Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
> > > number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
> > > easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.
> > >
> > > I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
> > > as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?
> > Possibly because for most people the process is a simple './configure;
> > make; make install'
> >
> > Pgsql doesn't do this. Not the install process is any less better but
>
> huh? all i do is './configure;make;make install' ...
And what about CVS?
bash-2.01$ cd ../pgsql
bash-2.01$ cvs -z9 update -dP
cvs [update aborted]: authorization failed: server postgresql.org rejected
access
bash-2.01$
-Egon
Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot discussion
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Lamar Owen wrote:
> And, if most people's experience with the RedHat 5.2 RPM's is what
> they're going on, they need to get with the program -- RH 5.2 shipped
> PostgreSQL *6.3.2* which is absolutely ancient. Although, at the time,
> 6.3.2 was better than nothing.
Hello Lamar,
'Better than nothing' - hmm...
Perhaps better than MySQL? Definitely better than PROGRESS which is
what it replaced in my shop. I have one linux box running Pg up over
190 days - and it gets hammered on daily. Mind you I don't run RedHat
on production machines - it's a little too cute and a little too unstable.
I use slackware.
Anyway, I have some development boxes using newer versions of Pg
(both FBSD and Linux - even a RedHat workstation) but there is nothing
wrong with 6.3.2. Sure 7+ boasts more features and better performance
but there is nothing fatally flawed in 6.3.2. Trust me, 190 days for
a linux box running linux is pretty good. Especially when the users
are social workers - afraid of technology and overly fond of abusing the
text data type.
6.3.2 is certainly 'better than nothing' and, aside from slow vacuums,
I have no complaints. Of course, I have the old logo taped to the cover
of my notebook: a printout of the various pg manuals and Bruce's book.
Being a bit of a blockhead I kind of fancy to exploding bricks. ;-)
BTW, re the slashdot business...
Maybe MySQL is 'perceived' as easier to use than Pg - like Access (Abcess?)
is perceived as being friendlier than a real database. But the reality
is that MySQL always struck me as being more of a toy than an industrial
strength db - and installation isn't really that much easier.
I still recall my first build with Pg. The docs were very good and I
had it up and running on my first attempt. The only difficulty I had
was determining what IF to use. I started with ecpg then switched to
DBI. I think now I'd like to have a crack on the new and improved ecpg.
I see that Michael's done alot of work - of course it was always 'better
than nothing'! ;-)
Cheers,
Tom
SVCMC - Center for Behavioral Health
Thomas Good tomg@ { admin | q8 } .nrnet.org
IS Coordinator / DBA Phone: 718-354-5528
Fax: 718-354-5056
Powered by: PostgreSQL s l a c k w a r e FreeBSD:
RDBMS |-- linux The Power To Serve
Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot discussion
"Prasanth A. Kumar" wrote: > > Travis Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Once I ran into a guy who said that the postgres rpm was broken in Red Hat > > 5.2. This was when I was first getting into postgres. I spent some time > > with it and realized that there were a number of things that had to be > > done before it would work: creating the postgres users, initializing the > > database, getting something into rc.d so it would boot up > > automatically. The RPM was not broken, but it was a pain to get postgres > > running unless you spent some time reading about it. My experience with > > MySQL was less painful, although dealing with user permissions was more > > complex. > > > The current Red Hat RPMS do create the postgres user and initialize > the database but doesn't define any of the environment variables. And where should they be defined? /etc/profile, perhaps? Do I really want ot go there with ENVVARS? (maybe I do -- maybe I don't :-)) > One > minor comment about the RPMS at the postgress website... The current > standard in Red Hat RPMS is to gzip all man pages because the man > program will automatically decompress them. If you run a RPM through > the program rpmlint, it will provide some useful warning about other > potential packing problems also... The only other rpmlint-able problem with the 7.0.2-2 set is the dangling symlink of os.h in -devel (which will be fixed in the next release). (and rpmlint's broken idea of file and directory permissions, which are set the way they are for a reason, and its broken idea of Vendor and Distribution..). The man pages are compressed in the latest RawHide release -- however, due to my desire for cross-distribution capability with these RPM's, since each distribution seems to have a different idea of where things ought to go, and what format they ought to be in... --buildpolicy in the latest RPM version fixes this sort of thing. The spec file itself is built with this in mind, allowing for the manpages to be compressed in any format or not compressed at all (due to the use of the appended * in the %files listing). Of course, that is a build-time thing -- my goal is not binary RPM compatibility, but SOURCE RPM compatibility. But, thanks for the critique anyway! :-) -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot discussion
Travis Bauer wrote: > > Once I ran into a guy who said that the postgres rpm was broken in Red Hat > 5.2. This was when I was first getting into postgres. I spent some time > with it and realized that there were a number of things that had to be > done before it would work: creating the postgres users, initializing the > database, getting something into rc.d so it would boot up > automatically. The RPM was not broken, but it was a pain to get postgres And, if most people's experience with the RedHat 5.2 RPM's is what they're going on, they need to get with the program -- RH 5.2 shipped PostgreSQL *6.3.2* which is absolutely ancient. Although, at the time, 6.3.2 was better than nothing. The newer RPM's, hopefully, have corrected many of the problems that existed with the _horrid_ 6.3.2 RPMset RedHat shipped with 5.1/5.2 (5.0 shipped *6.2.1*, which we won't even talk about -- although it was a better RPM set than *6.1.1*, which is where I first experienced the 'Joy of PostgreSQL') And, yes, the 6.3.2 RPMset was _horrid_ -- only there were you entreated to the joy of an upgrade from one release of 6.3.2 to another release of 6.3.2 totally breaking your database without warning (thanks to the misconcieved postgresql-data subpackage). The PostgreSQL group has come light years from the days of 6.1.1 -- I cannot overemphasize that! Although, I won't go as far as the 6.5 release statement of "This represents the team's Final Mastery..." :-). The documentation is several orders of magnitude better in 7.x than 6.1.1 or even as late as 6.3.2. The web site is also much much better -- I still remember the logo breaking through the brick wall. So, if most people's experience with PostgreSQL is that old. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot discussion
Travis Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Once I ran into a guy who said that the postgres rpm was broken in Red Hat > 5.2. This was when I was first getting into postgres. I spent some time > with it and realized that there were a number of things that had to be > done before it would work: creating the postgres users, initializing the > database, getting something into rc.d so it would boot up > automatically. The RPM was not broken, but it was a pain to get postgres > running unless you spent some time reading about it. My experience with > MySQL was less painful, although dealing with user permissions was more > complex. The current Red Hat RPMS do create the postgres user and initialize the database but doesn't define any of the environment variables. One minor comment about the RPMS at the postgress website... The current standard in Red Hat RPMS is to gzip all man pages because the man program will automatically decompress them. If you run a RPM through the program rpmlint, it will provide some useful warning about other potential packing problems also... -- Prasanth Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot discussion
Once I ran into a guy who said that the postgres rpm was broken in Red Hat
5.2. This was when I was first getting into postgres. I spent some time
with it and realized that there were a number of things that had to be
done before it would work: creating the postgres users, initializing the
database, getting something into rc.d so it would boot up
automatically. The RPM was not broken, but it was a pain to get postgres
running unless you spent some time reading about it. My experience with
MySQL was less painful, although dealing with user permissions was more
complex.
Travis Bauer | CS Grad Student | IU |www.cs.indiana.edu/~trbauer
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
> number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
> easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.
>
> I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
> as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?
>
Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot discussion
On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 12:24:20AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
> number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
> easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.
I've noticed that, too, but having installed them both (from source and from
packages), I have to say they're both "a pain" to install, at least as much
as anything is. Of course they are. They're complicated, and they're set
up to be flexible in installation on many machines.
It occurs to me, though, that many people may not install from source.
Maybe the RPMs are better for MySQL? I don't use 'em, so I don't know.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan Computer Services
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Burlington Public Library
+1 905 639 3611 x158 2331 New Street
Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7R 1J4
Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot discussion
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > J.R. Belding wrote: > > > > #mysql has much more activity than does #postgresql, and since I prefer > > this method of communication over mailing-lists, I found this to be very > > much in MySQL's favor. > > > Hmm. So which server do most postgresql people hang out on? EFNet, channel #PostgreSQL ... always someone there, but activity on it tends to be sporatic ...
Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot discussion
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, thanks to the www.phpbuilder.com PostgreSQL/MySQL comparison, there
> is another PostgreSQL/MySQL thread on shashdot.org. Looks interesting,
> and of course, we are looking good too.
Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.
I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/Sweden
Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot discussion
> P.S. My tolerance is negligible for anything that goes "beep" the way > mysql insists on doing when giving error messages. Like anyone needs > that when they're trying to figure out SQL syntax! Having to figure > out SQL syntax is pennance enough, surely ... MySQL beeps at you on an error. Ewe. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup.| Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Re: [GENERAL] Slashdot...
>
>
> Does anyone know what you have to do to get anything on slashdot? When
> v6.5 and v6.5.1 was released, I posted something to Slashdot announcing
> it, especially considering that the new MVCC code added by Vadim...
To get anything on /. you need to have a very big stick and live close
to rob so when he doesnt get round to posting information, you can
beat him with it.
If you dont live close to him, then the chances are about one in a
billion it will get posted. You could always email linus and get him
to mail rob, that will do it too {:-)
~M
[GENERAL] Slashdot...
Does anyone know what you have to do to get anything on slashdot? When
v6.5 and v6.5.1 was released, I posted something to Slashdot announcing
it, especially considering that the new MVCC code added by Vadim...
I just did a look around Slashdot, and the newest thing is a notice about
v6.3, which was slow, featureless and buggy...
IMHO, the MVCC was a substantial enough improvement over previous releases
to be warranted as "news", but...*shrug*
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: [EMAIL PROTECTED] secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
