Re: Oracle Express

14informix@gmail.com wrote: > BUT and MARK Townsend will correct me shortly, as will OTC. I am sure > that with ORACLE (or IBM / MS, etc ) no matter what you use, when you > do put it in a PRODUCTION ENV YOU HAVE TO PAY LICNSE FEES. > Cheapest? MySQL? Nope. Oracle Express can be deployed in production for free. As in no license fees. However, there are/is 1) Product limitations (up to 4 Gb of data only, Windows/Linux only, will use only one CPU on the machine) 2) No phone support - but there is an active community forum on OTN

Mark Townsend wrote: > 14informix@gmail.com wrote: > >> BUT and MARK Townsend will correct me shortly, as will OTC. I am sure >> that with ORACLE (or IBM / MS, etc ) no matter what you use, when you >> do put it in a PRODUCTION ENV YOU HAVE TO PAY LICNSE FEES. >> Cheapest? MySQL? > > Nope. Oracle Express can be deployed in production for free. As in no > license fees. However, there are/is > 1) Product limitations (up to 4 Gb of data only, Windows/Linux only, > will use only one CPU on the machine) > 2) No phone support - but there is an active community forum on OTN Do they have source? :o) -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Mark Townsend wrote: >> 14informix@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> BUT and MARK Townsend will correct me shortly, as will OTC. I am sure >>> that with ORACLE (or IBM / MS, etc ) no matter what you use, when you >>> do put it in a PRODUCTION ENV YOU HAVE TO PAY LICNSE FEES. >>> Cheapest? MySQL? >> >> Nope. Oracle Express can be deployed in production for free. As in no >> license fees. However, there are/is >> 1) Product limitations (up to 4 Gb of data only, Windows/Linux only, >> will use only one CPU on the machine) >> 2) No phone support - but there is an active community forum on OTN > > Do they have source? :o) Now there's a show stopper. When was the last time you modified the source code of the Linux kernel and then used your modifications for a production environment? I'm waiting. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote in message news:1226439635.465185@bubbleator.drizzle.com... > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> Mark Townsend wrote: >>> 14informix@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> BUT and MARK Townsend will correct me shortly, as will OTC. I am sure >>>> that with ORACLE (or IBM / MS, etc ) no matter what you use, when you >>>> do put it in a PRODUCTION ENV YOU HAVE TO PAY LICNSE FEES. >>>> Cheapest? MySQL? >>> >>> Nope. Oracle Express can be deployed in production for free. As in no >>> license fees. However, there are/is >>> 1) Product limitations (up to 4 Gb of data only, Windows/Linux only, >>> will use only one CPU on the machine) >>> 2) No phone support - but there is an active community forum on OTN >> >> Do they have source? :o) > > Now there's a show stopper. When was the last time you modified the > source code of the Linux kernel and then used your modifications for > a production environment? I'm waiting. Well, I don't think that was quite his point. If you have vendor support for your production product, the vendor *does* have source, and can arrange patches or upgrades to address your issues, often in fairly short order. IBM does this with Informix and other software, as I'm sure does Oracle. Relying upon a user community for support removes this possibility. It's a point we have to make quite often, because many companies *are* tempted to skip vendor maintenance, which can be very costly. If you don't have vendor maintenance but reply on third-parties or user communities, you won't get patches, upgrades, or dial-in-and-patch fixes. (Still, many customers do decide to go without, particualrly those who view their systems as "legacy". This is a trend I expect to accelerate sharply as we all head further into recession. Yesterday I received notification that IBM is rainging its software maintenance prices by 5% across the board on 1st January. What fantastic timing! I really don't know of any other businesses (apart from utlities) who think that the time is ripe for a 5% price hike. I think the people who make this decisons live on a quite different planet from me!)

Mark Townsend wrote: > 14informix@gmail.com wrote: > >> BUT and MARK Townsend will correct me shortly, as will OTC. I am sure >> that with ORACLE (or IBM / MS, etc ) no matter what you use, when you >> do put it in a PRODUCTION ENV YOU HAVE TO PAY LICNSE FEES. >> Cheapest? MySQL? > > Nope. Oracle Express can be deployed in production for free. As in no > license fees. However, there are/is > 1) Product limitations (up to 4 Gb of data only, Windows/Linux only, > will use only one CPU on the machine) > 2) No phone support - but there is an active community forum on OTN There are a lot of "free" databases out there... Oracle Express, DB2 Express, all the open sources (postgres, mysql?, derby, Ingres, Firebird etc.) If free is a requisite, just choose the one you like... Many of them don't have any kind of restriction (license restrictions I mean) Regards. -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently...

Neil Truby wrote: > "DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote in message > news:1226439635.465185@bubbleator.drizzle.com... >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> Mark Townsend wrote: >>>> 14informix@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> BUT and MARK Townsend will correct me shortly, as will OTC. I am sure >>>>> that with ORACLE (or IBM / MS, etc ) no matter what you use, when you >>>>> do put it in a PRODUCTION ENV YOU HAVE TO PAY LICNSE FEES. >>>>> Cheapest? MySQL? >>>> >>>> Nope. Oracle Express can be deployed in production for free. As in >>>> no license fees. However, there are/is >>>> 1) Product limitations (up to 4 Gb of data only, Windows/Linux only, >>>> will use only one CPU on the machine) >>>> 2) No phone support - but there is an active community forum on OTN >>> >>> Do they have source? :o) >> >> Now there's a show stopper. When was the last time you modified the >> source code of the Linux kernel and then used your modifications for >> a production environment? I'm waiting. > > Well, I don't think that was quite his point. > If you have vendor support for your production product, the vendor > *does* have source, and can arrange patches or upgrades to address your > issues, often in fairly short order. IBM does this with Informix and > other software, as I'm sure does Oracle. Relying upon a user community > for support removes this possibility. And you pay for support: Yes? Even for "Free" products like Linux and MySQL ... you pay for support. You want support for Oracle Express? Write me a check. <g> But that really isn't the point either. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

Fernando Nunes wrote: > There are a lot of "free" databases out there... > Oracle Express, DB2 Express, all the open sources (postgres, mysql?, > derby, Ingres, Firebird etc.) > If free is a requisite, just choose the one you like... > Many of them don't have any kind of restriction (license restrictions I > mean) > Regards. And all but two that you mention are not compatible with an organization's enterprise systems. If you want free you can get free. If you want free with seamless compatibility you either pay a price in dollars or some restrictions. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

On Nov 11, 4:45 pm, "Neil Truby" <neil.tr...@ardenta.com> wrote: > "DA Morgan" <damor...@psoug.org> wrote in message > > news:1226439635.465185@bubbleator.drizzle.com... > > > > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> Mark Townsend wrote: > >>> 14infor...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>> BUT and MARK Townsend will correct me shortly, as will OTC.  I am sure > >>>> that with ORACLE (or IBM / MS, etc ) no matter what you use, when you > >>>> do put it in a PRODUCTION ENV YOU HAVE TO PAY LICNSE FEES. > >>>> Cheapest? MySQL? > > >>> Nope. Oracle Express can be deployed in production for free. As in no > >>> license fees. However, there are/is > >>> 1) Product limitations (up to 4 Gb of data only, Windows/Linux only, > >>> will use only one CPU on the machine) > >>> 2) No phone support - but there is an active community forum on OTN > > >> Do they have source? :o) > > > Now there's a show stopper. When was the last time you modified the > > source code of the Linux kernel and then used your modifications for > > a production environment? I'm waiting. > > Well, I don't think that was quite his point. > If you have vendor support for your production product, the vendor *does* > have source, and can arrange patches or upgrades to address your issues, > often in fairly short order.  IBM does this with Informix and other > software, as I'm sure does Oracle. Relying upon a user community for support > removes this possibility. > > It's a point we have to make quite often, because many companies *are* > tempted to skip vendor maintenance, which can be very costly.  If you don't > have vendor maintenance but reply on third-parties or user communities, you > won't get patches, upgrades, or dial-in-and-patch fixes. > Whoa! The whole concept of an "open source initiative" is that there is a community that is behind the product. You can and do get patches and updates for certain OSI projects. You may not necessarily get patches, but you do get a steady stream of releases. Since Daniel Maroon is an Oracle bigot, lets talk about cx_Oracle, an open source python adaptor. Its a good example of something that is used in production environments yet you don't get support from a vendor. (Yes you can patch the source if necessary ;-) With respect to Linux, theres this release called OpenSuSE ... stop me if you've heard this one.... There you rely on *third parties* for certain patches and updates that you can get downloaded to your machine... So nothing is black and white anymore. Just shades of gray.

On Nov 11, 3:40 pm, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > > Do they have source? :o) > > Now there's a show stopper. When was the last time you modified the > source code of the Linux kernel and then used your modifications for > a production environment? I'm waiting. > -- Sigh. Danny boy, when was the last time you ever worked with the source of *any* OS? Sorry buddy, I wouldn't trust your skills as a software engineer so stick to teaching Oracle at an extension campus of a University.

Fernando Nunes schrieb: > There are a lot of "free" databases out there... > Oracle Express, DB2 Express, all the open sources (postgres, mysql?, > derby, Ingres, Firebird etc.) > If free is a requisite, just choose the one you like... > Many of them don't have any kind of restriction (license restrictions I > mean) May I add MaxDB? It is used with SAP systems with multi-TB of data and V. 7.5 and 7.6 are open source and available for free. Support via web forum which is also monitored by development staff is free too. See http://maxdb.sap.com and https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/maxdb HTH and best regards Christian

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Nov 11, 3:40 pm, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > >>> Do they have source? :o) >> Now there's a show stopper. When was the last time you modified the >> source code of the Linux kernel and then used your modifications for >> a production environment? I'm waiting. >> -- > > Sigh. Danny boy, when was the last time you ever worked with the > source of *any* OS? > Sorry buddy, I wouldn't trust your skills as a software engineer so > stick to teaching Oracle at an extension campus of a University. Please read for content in the future. My point was exactly that. I don't touch kernel code and I wouldn't touch a product where someone, on their own, did. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

On Nov 12, 11:09 am, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > On Nov 11, 3:40 pm, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > > >>> Do they have source? :o) > >> Now there's a show stopper. When was the last time you modified the > >> source code of the Linux kernel and then used your modifications for > >> a production environment? I'm waiting. > >> -- > > > Sigh. Danny boy, when was the last time you ever worked with the > > source of *any* OS? > > Sorry buddy, I wouldn't trust your skills as a software engineer so > > stick to teaching Oracle at an extension campus of a University. > > Please read for content in the future. My point was exactly that. > I don't touch kernel code and I wouldn't touch a product where > someone, on their own, did. There's no reach there Daniel. You're making a slippery slope argument that one should choose a brain dead version of Oracle over an OSI database product because it provides the source code so that even if you can't guarantee a timely response from the user community, one could make their own fix. You can't do that with Oracle Express. Oh and while I bash Oracle, I believe that handicapping any product to the point of it being less than useful so you can give it away for free to be a brain dead product. That goes for the "free" DB2 version too.

Actually Daniel you might want to educate yourself about the Linux kernel in context with other UNIXes out there. SCO was shipped with a modifiable kernel, same for HP/UX, and quite a few other *NIX variants shipped (or ship) with a kernel that allowed changes either to the core or modules. I think even MAC OSX ships this way, the latest OSX is an outgrowth of Next and its quest for a perfect micro kernel architecture. It really is important to understand the holy grail of kernels, the desire for micro kernel, where the goal is as much as possible making everything to do with the kernel a loadable module, only the very core remaining static and unchangeable. Linux is getting better in this regard, increasing its chances for success on as wide a variety of hardware platforms as possible. It also means optimization of loading only what is necessary depending on the hardware components. Linux's kernel build _today_ is the best it's ever been. You can download the latest at www.kernel.org, and it will most likely build to your hardware darn near perfect on the first compile. It also means that you don't even have to use rpm to build the source, or other scary poorly documented tools, you just follow a few steps it's that good now. I think in the next year it will get even better, and even easier to manage. There are some areas that need improving, but more to do with documentation than the actual process of building a kernel. Kernel builds for production boxes are activities that happen quite often all around the world, with the emphasis on being able to tune the kernel for speed and optimization of hardware with the OS. You should be up to speed on this especially considering what a pig Oracle is, where every bit of the hardware is consumed. ( FWIW I've compiled kernels on Oracle production boxes without incident, only a much better running box and happier users. ) As a challenge, install a RedHat or other Linux variant with as few software pieces as possible, and notice how much better your Oracle will run. You can no longer afford to think in one-dimensional terms of just being a DBA, and not understanding the OS, or ignoring the network. It all has to work together. The good news it's even easier today than it ever was. -ID- DA Morgan wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> On Nov 11, 3:40 pm, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: >> >>>> Do they have source? :o) >>> Now there's a show stopper. When was the last time you modified the >>> source code of the Linux kernel and then used your modifications for >>> a production environment? I'm waiting. >>> -- >> >> Sigh. Danny boy, when was the last time you ever worked with the >> source of *any* OS? >> Sorry buddy, I wouldn't trust your skills as a software engineer so >> stick to teaching Oracle at an extension campus of a University. > > Please read for content in the future. My point was exactly that. > I don't touch kernel code and I wouldn't touch a product where > someone, on their own, did.

InDeep wrote: > Actually Daniel you might want to educate yourself about the > Linux kernel in context with other UNIXes out there. SCO was > shipped with a modifiable kernel, same for HP/UX, and quite a > few other *NIX variants shipped (or ship) with a kernel that > allowed changes either to the core or modules. I think even > MAC OSX ships this way, the latest OSX is an outgrowth of Next > and its quest for a perfect micro kernel architecture. I wouldn't touch SCO without wearing sterile surgical gloves. But yes major O/S vendors, including Oracle, do take open source code and modify it. That wasn't the issue being discussed. PS: Mac OSX is a variant on FreeBSD. What I wouldn't touch, in production, is a kernel that has been modified by some self-annointed developers. And it isn't about whether they are or are not brilliant developers. It is about the support and testing. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

On Nov 13, 12:52 am, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > InDeep wrote: 't the issue being discussed. > > PS: Mac OSX is a variant on FreeBSD. > Uhm No. Mac OSX is based on Mach. Mach is a product of CMU. Trying to say that is a derivative of BSD is like saying BSD is a derivative of AT&T. Mach's microkernel architecture is much different from BSD, not that you or anyone here would care. Mach OSX is based on the NeXTStep OS after Apple acquired NeXT from Jobs. But this is getting way off topic. Unless you can get Oracle Express on Mac.

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Nov 13, 12:52 am, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: >> InDeep wrote: > 't the issue being discussed. >> PS: Mac OSX is a variant on FreeBSD. >> > > Uhm No. Uhm yes! Yes! and YES! You really are hard of thinking sometimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#Free_Unix-like_operating_systems Let me quote: In 1997, Apple Computer sought out a new foundation for its Macintosh operating system and chose NEXTSTEP, an operating system developed by NeXT. The core operating system, which was based on BSD and the Mach kernel, was renamed Darwin after Apple acquired it. My statement "Mac OSX is a variant on FreeBSD" stands correct as stated. Mach is just the name of the kernel used in the creation of FreeBSD. I represented Apple in 2005 at a number of high profile presentations including NASA, and at both Lawrence Livermore and Argonne Natl Labs. If you want to play games choose a different topic. Something I don't know anything about. How about football or Ken dolls. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

Daniel, Just because you read it in Wikipedia doesn't make it true. Did you see what was written about the IBM acquisition of Informix? ;-) Again the Mach kernel is a CMU product not BSD. Like I said. You want to say that Mac OS X is BSD you might as well as say its AT&T too. Avi got his PhD based on his work on Mach. You do know Avi, right? Did you ever listen to him talk? Oh and BTW, I was NextStep certified back in '92. :-P But hey, what do I know? -G PS. Can you tell me whats the difference between BSD and AT&T flavors of Unix? > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:59:32 -0800> From: damorgan@psoug.org> Subject: Re: Oracle Express> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > Ian Michael Gumby wrote:> > On Nov 13, 12:52 am, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote:> >> InDeep wrote:> > 't the issue being discussed.> >> PS: Mac OSX is a variant on FreeBSD.> >>> > > > Uhm No.> > Uhm yes! Yes! and YES!> > You really are hard of thinking sometimes.> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#Free_Unix-like_operating_systems>; > Let me quote:> In 1997, Apple Computer sought out a new foundation for its Macintosh > operating system and chose NEXTSTEP, an operating system developed by > NeXT. The core operating system, which was based on BSD and the Mach > kernel, was renamed Darwin after Apple acquired it.> > My statement "Mac OSX is a variant on FreeBSD" stands correct as stated.> Mach is just the name of the kernel used in the creation of FreeBSD.> > I represented Apple in 2005 at a number of high profile presentations> including NASA, and at both Lawrence Livermore and Argonne Natl Labs.> If you want to play games choose a different topic. Something I don't> know anything about. How about football or Ken dolls.> -- > Daniel A. Morgan> University of Washington> damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)> _______________________________________________> Informix-list mailing list> Informix-list@iiug.org> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/

> Subject: Re: Oracle Express> From: damorgan@psoug.org> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:17:20 -0800> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > Fernando Nunes wrote:> > > There are a lot of "free" databases out there...> > Oracle Express, DB2 Express, all the open sources (postgres, mysql?, > > derby, Ingres, Firebird etc.)> > If free is a requisite, just choose the one you like...> > Many of them don't have any kind of restriction (license restrictions I > > mean)> > Regards.> > And all but two that you mention are not compatible with an> organization's enterprise systems. If you want free you can> get free. If you want free with seamless compatibility you> either pay a price in dollars or some restrictions.> -- What a maroon. Daniel, the OP runs IDS and is asking how to save on licenses by switching to a *free* version of something. 1) OP should know already that there is a cost in doing the migration to any platform. 2) Based on what OP is doing, there may be a cheaper license that he can try and get using IDS. 3) By going to an Open Source option, he saves on license costs and may not have any inhibitors on performance. Depending on his needs, he could switch to JavaDB/Derby/Cloudscape. Of course that would mean that they would need some java skills in house. Note too that there are people who have databases in production where 1 table exceeds the crippled release from Oracle. Another option is the Ingres/Postgres/etc solution which is released under BSD licensing. This too means that they don't have licensing costs and depending on the complexity, they can get what they need done by most of these databases. Yes, TANSTAAFL applies. Any solution that we could think up has to weigh the issue of licensing costs vs the cost of migration and maintenance issues down the road. Having the source means you can fix it yourself. Having the skills to actually find/implement a fix is another. What are they willing to sacrifice in order to save some money? Had they thought about resizing their server and upgrading to a smaller box? Again you have to consider Moore's law. If their box is over 18 months, or rather 24-36 months old, they could buy a smaller box that could do more and save them money. It all depends on their hardware upgrade cycle. And since we're in the cheap seats, we don't know what their constraints are. So for you to try and pimp a brain dead version of an already handicapped product, well, that just goes to show how much of a "crack whore" you are. Now doesn't it? And when I use the term "crack whore" I mean that you've sold your soul to Larry and are willing to say or do *anything* in the name of Oracle since you've attached your life to it. -G _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows® connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119463819/direct/01/

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > Daniel, > > Just because you read it in Wikipedia doesn't make it true. How about ... just because you worked with the engineers in Sunnvale that write it? Does that count? Get with the program. If you had ever worked with Mac OSX and both BSD and Unix System V you'd know that this is the case: It is, to put it gently, obvious. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)