Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Toward A Positive Marketing Approach.
Tom, > or is the real > problem that it'd take a whole lot of both OO-fu and Postgres-fu? > If so, can we find someone with the former nature to collaborate with? OO-Fu, mostly. I've already posted to the DBA project on OOo. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 07:04:47PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > libreadline is not a problem because you can distribute postgresql >> > compiled with readline and comply with all licences involved >> > simultaneously. It doesn't work with openssl because the licence >> > requires things that are incompatable with the GPL. >> >> My question is whether psql using libreadline.so has to be GPL, meaning >> the psql source has to be included in a binary distribution. > > IANAL, but yes. Or any other of the methods allowed, like providing a > written voucher valid for at least three years. People who feel they > need to keep the source to psql secret should link against libeditline > instead. > > The way I understand it, the GPL affects programs in two main ways: > > 1. A program which is GPL'd must, when distributed, be able to provide > all source used to build it under terms compatable with the GPL. This is not technically true. If you incorporate GPL code that is publically available and unchanged, you needn't provide the 3rd party packages. > > 2. A program which includes a GPL'd header file while building, must, > when distributed, provide its own source and the library under GPL > compatable terms, but not necessariliy the source of anything else > needed to build it. This is why it's OK that psql links against openssl > and readline. This is sort of a disputable position, and RMS himself isn't clear. If the header files are simply definitions and declarations, then no GPL material is actually included in a binary. However, inline functions and macros may constitute code. > > These are obviously only relevent when distributing precompiled > binaries. If you are only distributing source, none of the above > applies to you. > Of course. > There's a third method that some people claim, but I don't buy. This > where a program using an interface of a GPL'd library somehow become a > derived work of said library. That's just way whacked out. There is no supporting argument for that, however, RMS supporting writings indicate that he defines "derived" as being in the same process space. > > You may ofcourse disagree with any of the above, and hey, if you have a > lawyer to back you up, who am I to argue? I have talked to too many lawyers, sigh, aout this stuff. > > As for why you don't solve the problem by distributing a libpq not > compiled against OpenSSL, well, that's a different question. Back when > SSL was considered an arms exports by the US, having both SSL and > non-SSL versions was common (and a big PITA). When that disappeared, > the main reason for the split went away and people started compiling > SSL by default. This solved the problem for 99% of programs. > > However, one tiny subset remains problematic: > - A library implements SSL, but only using OpenSSL > - The library doesn't use the GPL, or doesn't have an OpenSSL exception > clause. > - A GPL'd program uses this library, without an OpenSSL exception > clause. > > In this subset of a subset of a subset of programs, it's a problem. > Many libraries that implement SSL provide an alternative to OpenSSL, > many programs using such libraries have exception clauses so that > there's just a handful of programs and libraries that are problematic. > > As long as there's a possibility that the situation can change (either > every GPL program using postgresql gains an exception clause, or > postgresql might someday support some other library) it will probably > stay this way. > > If the the postgresql core decides that OpenSSL will be the only SSL > ever supported, no matter what, well, the split distribution may yet > happen. In the meantime, we have status quo. > > Have a nice day, > -- > Martijn van Oosterhout http://svana.org/kleptog/ >> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to >> litigate. > ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Then again PGfoundry is great to keep development centered, but finding and building a new package is not really a one-liner, and if you're unlucky you might get alpha-quality code installed. :) Mammoth PostgreSQL was designed to fill this role. It is an FOSS project (www.mammothpostgresql.org) that is designed to be a COMPLETE postgresql distribution. Joshua D. Drake ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:36:25AM +0200, Lukas Smith wrote: > Hi, > > I really think that PostgreSQL could benefit from a packaged solution > that incorporates a lot of the contrib stuff (tsearch2, maybe even some > replication setups ..). I really like the approach that PostgreSQL is a > clean yet highly extensible base from which other people can build their > specific tools. I think we're starting to see some of that, with things like the live CD. What I'd rather see time spent on is a framework that makes it easier to grab things from pgFoundry. To use a bad example, think CPAN for PostgreSQL. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 06:01:19PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 5/19/06, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >And with that, I am going to sit in a lawn chair and watch the bonfire. > > This is one of the finest examples of unfocused discussions I've ever > seen on -hackers... while surely entertaining, what a huge waste of > time. I tried a few times to move it to -advococy... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
> > My question is whether psql using libreadline.so has to be GPL, meaning > the psql source has to be included in a binary distribution. If I understand what I have been told by lawyers, here's what using a GPL, and NOT LGPL, library means: According to RMS, the definition of a derivitive work is one which shares the same address space when running. The in-memory process separation also separates works. One may argue this definition, but it is in supporting documents to the GPL and likely to be considered as the intention of the GPL in a court of law. There is no requirement of shipping source with a binary. One must "make available" the source. This can be done by a web site or alternate CD distribution. It need not be free, as in beer, but must be free of any restrictions beyond those of the GPL. There is no requirement that one would need to make the source of the 3rd party GPL library available, as it is available from the original source from whence it was obtained in the first place. Any changes, however, made, by you, to that library must be made available. (If you do not make modifications to libreadline, you don't even need to worry about it.) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] String Similarity
> What I was hoping someone had was a function that could find the substring > runs in something less than a strlen1*strlen2 number of operations and a > numerically sane way of representing the similarity or difference. Acually, it is more like strlen1*strlen2*N, where N is the number of valid runs. Unless someone has a GREAT algorithm, I think it will always be at least strlen1*strlen2. The amount of processing for N is the question. Is N * (strlen1*strlen2) less than sorting an array of N elements, scanning through those elements and eliminating duplicate character matches? Depending on the max value of N, I could save all the runs, sort by max length, then exclude based on overlapp, but it isn't clear that this is a performance win unless the strings are long, even then, I'm not completely convinced as N still has some strlen ramifications for removing duplicates. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
On 5/20/06, Lukas Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The improvements to the installer are great, but there simply needs to be a packaged solution that adds more of the things people are very likely to use. From my understanding Bizgres goes in that direction? I just think that whatever highly packaged solution PostgreSQL picks, this should be the download that is pushed at conferences, in articles and books. People with a clue will still know where they can get the clean base. Hmm, a Comprehensive PostgreSQL Archive Network? ;) I mean, something like CPAN, CTAN or CRAN? :) I mean, the -contrib is great, but pushing other things there is a bit tricky (to say the least) from the maintenance point of view. (Every bugfix, a new release of -contrib, etc, etc...). Then again PGfoundry is great to keep development centered, but finding and building a new package is not really a one-liner, and if you're unlucky you might get alpha-quality code installed. :) I think a CPgAN-like solution would be the best. A uniform method of getting approved Pg extensions. It would simplify installing the extensions, and would encourage distributions to package such extensions. Somebody suggested apt-get install postgresql-contrib. Imagine: apt-get install postgresql-datatype-fqdn apt-get install postgresql-gist-ltree ...and so on. Regards, Dawid ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] String Similarity
> Get pg_trgm http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/oddmuse/index.cgi/ReadmeTrgm > It doesn't depends on language. That's an interesting approach. This is what I got: apps$ ./stratest "pink floyd dark side of the moon money" "dark side of the moon pink floyd" Match: dark side of the moon Match: pink floyd Similarity: 89 One function finds the substring runs, in descending order of length, between the two strings. After the function, I have number of runs, length of best run, total number of characters matched. Without going into too lengthy description, while space and punctuation are not reliable. Like this "pinkfloyd" or "pink floyd" "darkside" or "dark side" Humans are VERY good at seeing these things, computers, pardon, suck. What I was hoping someone had was a function that could find the substring runs in something less than a strlen1*strlen2 number of operations and a numerically sane way of representing the similarity or difference. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: ... >> apt-get install postgresql-8.1 postgresql-contrib-8.1 >> >> Voila! Tsearch installed at your fingertips. What else were you >> expecting? > > I expect this to be one package and I expect this to be what is pushed > as the default package on all platforms. If someone just sat in an pgsql > talk (or even a talk that mentions pgsql), has read an article, picked > up a book .. this is what he should be downloading and installing. ... > If PostgreSQL pushes FooSQL as its "packaged solution" at all > opportunities I am sure it would quickly get into the heads of people > and if done in a concerted effort along with the corporate sponsors it > could provide for a huge marketing opportunity and a slew of articles > from the press. But that is a topic for another list. > maybe the package should read: postgresql-heavy postgresql-complete or even as you seem to suggest: postgresql where the other parts are postgresql-clients, postgresql-server postgresql-contrib and so on. Beware, however, if "complete" means with gui clients, not all people would be happy if you pull X and friends to their unix servers :-) So whatever is in "complete" should depend on the target platform. I think the naming schema of the debian packages go in the right direction - maybe this can be harmonized along the distributions? Regards Tino Wildenhain ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:36:25AM +0200, Lukas Smith wrote: The improvements to the installer are great, but there simply needs to be a packaged solution that adds more of the things people are very likely to use. From my understanding Bizgres goes in that direction? I just think that whatever highly packaged solution PostgreSQL picks, this should be the download that is pushed at conferences, in articles and books. People with a clue will still know where they can get the clean base. There is a fantastic packaged solution already: apt-get install postgresql-8.1 postgresql-contrib-8.1 Voila! Tsearch installed at your fingertips. What else were you expecting? I expect this to be one package and I expect this to be what is pushed as the default package on all platforms. If someone just sat in an pgsql talk (or even a talk that mentions pgsql), has read an article, picked up a book .. this is what he should be downloading and installing. I do think that the name PostgreSQL has a fair amount of mindshare, but I do not think that this package needs to be called PostgreSQL necessarily. The problem with calling it PostgreSQL is that this would mean moving things into the core distribution which do not belong there. But expecting the unwashed masses to understand that they need to install contrib ontop of PostgreSQL is not a good idea. If PostgreSQL pushes FooSQL as its "packaged solution" at all opportunities I am sure it would quickly get into the heads of people and if done in a concerted effort along with the corporate sponsors it could provide for a huge marketing opportunity and a slew of articles from the press. But that is a topic for another list. regards, Lukas ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 10:36:25AM +0200, Lukas Smith wrote: > The improvements to the installer are great, but there simply needs to > be a packaged solution that adds more of the things people are very > likely to use. From my understanding Bizgres goes in that direction? I > just think that whatever highly packaged solution PostgreSQL picks, this > should be the download that is pushed at conferences, in articles and > books. People with a clue will still know where they can get the clean base. There is a fantastic packaged solution already: apt-get install postgresql-8.1 postgresql-contrib-8.1 Voila! Tsearch installed at your fingertips. What else were you expecting? Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to > litigate. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Hi, I really think that PostgreSQL could benefit from a packaged solution that incorporates a lot of the contrib stuff (tsearch2, maybe even some replication setups ..). I really like the approach that PostgreSQL is a clean yet highly extensible base from which other people can build their specific tools. However the fact of the matter is that MySQL provides a good enough, yet very easy to setup and do semi advanced things (like full text, replication etc). My key point here is _good enough_. This means there is obviously still an opportunity to give them something _better_, as long as it does not get in their way of being easy to setup. The improvements to the installer are great, but there simply needs to be a packaged solution that adds more of the things people are very likely to use. From my understanding Bizgres goes in that direction? I just think that whatever highly packaged solution PostgreSQL picks, this should be the download that is pushed at conferences, in articles and books. People with a clue will still know where they can get the clean base. regards, Lukas ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
