Quote from a NG post by a Microsoft techie, explaining why a certain
bug will not be fixed in their .NET IDE:
Many people don't know this, but the software industry
has studied bugs and fixing bugs and has determined
that (on average) every three lines of code modified
to fix a bug introdu
It's fast, simple, reliable, and the price is right. It does not have
interfaces to a lot of the IBM middleware, but if that's not important to
you, it's a good solid data engine.
Referential integrity is present in both Postgres and MySQL, but the MySQL
transactional integrity code isn't as well
Very funny look at the similarity between Sco's claims and the Nigerian
email scams
http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/03q2/nigerian-sco.html
Geoff
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:02:03PM +0100, David Goodenough wrote:
> If this is a "heavy" database application you would be much better off with
> PostgreSQL.
What about Firbird? And about Sap-DB? Anybody using one of those two?
(both are free as well)
--
Tzafrir Cohen +-
Adam,
MySQL has transactions now. I believe the component name you need is
innodb.
One thing people might want to look at is SAPDB. It's been used in
enterprise applications for some time. It's also Open Source. I believe
the last few wrinkles have been worked out so that it compiles on Linux
I didn't mean to "throw rocks" at either MySql or PostgreSQL. I really like
PostgreSQL and use it myself at home. I'm just very conservative about my
data. I.e. I don't think (could be wrong) that PostgreSQL has all the tools
for recovering from problems that DB2 has. I.e. forward recovery logs and
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 09:00, McKown, John wrote:
> Another possibility, with a longer history, is PostgreSQL. But, in all
> fairness, I would resist that as well.
John, could you explain this? I haven't seen many people throw rocks at
PostgreSQL.
--
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
[EMAIL PR
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 08:02, David Goodenough wrote:
> for anything serious use Postgresql
I would tend to second this (presuming you want to save money by not
going with a commercial solution, although I've heard from people in the
x86 world that PostgreSQL is at least as fast as Oracle). MySQL-
- Original Message -
From: "John Summerfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: MSNBC: New Report Cites Benefits of Consolidating SAP on
Linux an d the IBM Mainframe
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, John Ford wrote:
>
> > "The analysis,
If this is a "heavy" database application you would be much better off with
PostgreSQL. There are many things that you will have come to rely on in
DB2 that I am told by DB techies do not exist in MySql. I have heard MySql
described as the Access (DB bit, not the forms and views bit) of the Linux
In case someone hasn't seen this.
Microsoft knows a reliable operating system when it see's one...
microsoft.com runs under Linux!
http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=13100775
=
Chet Norris
Marriott International,Inc.
__
Do you Ya
Ralph,
Personal opinion time
I, personally, would resist this. MySQL is very good. But it does not have
all the features and reliability of DB2. It only recently got ACID support.
Another possibility, with a longer history, is PostgreSQL. But, in all
fairness, I would resist that as well. But it
MySQL is a very nice database package, but is missing some features that folks
might take for granted in larger and/or commercial packages. They are
furiously adding new features, but I would check the doc to make sure that
any feature set that you are expecting in a relational database is availab
We are thinking about using MySql for all our production work
instead of DB2..
any comments, gotcha, or anything else??
thanks
Ralph
14 matches
Mail list logo
