Re: Open Source?

>>How many databases is the Informix Software (database operations) >>company going to be looking after? SE, OnLine, IDS, XPS, Foundation, >>RedBrick, Cloudscape(?), Universe, Unidata, ... >>If you were in charge, would you make any of these products available >>as Open Source products? Which Ones? Why? Or Why Not? Would you >>try to join the development team? Would you use the Open Source >>version yourself? >>I am who I am. I do not work, directly or indirectly, for Oracle. >I do not see that asking this question qualifies me for retorts such >as 'Sphincter' and 'A-hole'. >Judging from the response thus far, one person would be interested in >using Open Source versions of the Informix databases, but no-one can be >lured into helping with such an effort. And it isn't even interesting >to speculate on whether it could happen? OK, that's fair enough. >Dreadfully disappointing, but fair enough. I didn't respond because I think (IMHO) that the probablity of such an occurance as Open Sourecing one of their engines is extremely close to zero. It took Oracle releasing to get them to do a port to an Open Source OS (and a slightly dubious port at that: 25580 errors on busy network connections, no support for the system authentication libraries, etc....) Also the "need" for such a release isn't really their. If you want to look at the code for a great DB engine look at PostgreSQL, it's got transactions, SQL9(whatever) compliance, and performance is great. It has really grown up in the last few releases. >Have we reached a complete consensus on this, or have people decided not >to answer simply because the person asking the question chooses to >sound...but both Delphi and Oracle have the wrong connotations; have >people chosen not to answer because the questioner chooses to remain >unidentified, and hence people have assumed that the question cannot >possibly be serious? Serious, but not realistic. >Why are Obnoxious Clowns and Mindless Blonds >acceptable but innocent Sphinxes outcast? And where is the Mindless >Blond these days? Who said the Obnoxiuos Clown was acceptable? >There's been an interesting amount of discussion about my signature. >And what is the Riddle of the Sphinx? Maybe mythology humor is a welcome break from staring at onstat output?

Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > >>How many databases is the Informix Software (database operations) > >>company going to be looking after? SE, OnLine, IDS, XPS, Foundation, > >>RedBrick, Cloudscape(?), Universe, Unidata, ... > >>If you were in charge, would you make any of these products available > >>as Open Source products? Which Ones? Why? Or Why Not? Would you > >>try to join the development team? Would you use the Open Source > >>version yourself? > >>I am who I am. I do not work, directly or indirectly, for Oracle. > >I do not see that asking this question qualifies me for retorts such > >as 'Sphincter' and 'A-hole'. > >Judging from the response thus far, one person would be interested in > >using Open Source versions of the Informix databases, but no-one can be > >lured into helping with such an effort. And it isn't even interesting > >to speculate on whether it could happen? OK, that's fair enough. > >Dreadfully disappointing, but fair enough. > > I didn't respond because I think (IMHO) that the probablity of such an occurance > as Open Sourecing one of their engines is extremely close to zero. You may be right. > It took Oracle releasing to get them to do a port to an Open Source OS Just to set the record straight: Actually, Informix released product on Linux about 6 months ahead of Oracle, in July 1998 at the Informix Worldwide User Conference in Seattle. Oracle pre-announced vapour-ware during the week before that-- presumably because they got wind of Informix's impending release of product. > (and a slightly > dubious port at that: 25580 errors on busy network connections, no support for > the system authentication libraries, etc....) Also the "need" for such a > release isn't really their. If you want to look at the code for a great DB > engine look at PostgreSQL, it's got transactions, SQL9(whatever) compliance, and > performance is great. It has really grown up in the last few releases. Certainly, Postgres and MySQL are the two leading open source alternatives. And MySQL is also catching up with transaction support (not available until June 2000). So, you're view is that it would not be worth releasing a mid-90's mainstream RDBMS to open source because there are already some open source databases that are ... well, good enough, better, or just there? Which do you think applies? -- Jonathan Leffler (jleffler@informix.com, jleffler@earthlink.net) Guardian of DBD::Informix v1.00.PC1 -- see http://www.perl.com/CPAN #include <disclaimer.h>