MySQL isn't quite "free" since it requires a commercial license. I like that it tries to compete with the big three and kudos to people that are using it. But I have to agree, anything that stops or freeze any database server is not only a 'show stopper' but an expensive proposition. Writing software is expense, *not* buying software.

I can't say why this wasn't considered a "show stopper", but I do find it in line with the general quality of free trade magazines. These magazines are written by journalists, not hard core techies, and whatever development/testing they do tends to be lightweight and not real world.

IMHO, MySQL is a peice of crap. This especially in light of SQL Server express editions, it makes very little sense to use MySQL.

Did I just annoy the left wing tree hugger linux lover leather panty open source crowd?

Or the free versions of Oracle and DB2 as well... for those MS hating left wing tree hugging smelly organic types... ;-))

Actually, MySQL is a commercial product that happens to be distributed under a not so liberal opensource license. The development is done by one organization (MySQL A.B.).

I am a left wing tree hugger linux lover myself, and I still think MySQL is a piece of crap. I much prefer PostgreSQL.

Perhaps it really wasn't a server 'freeze-up' at all, but a 'freeze-up' in the client communication to the server which can be percieved as a database lockup. If a client freezes occasionally when examining a large stored procedure (i.e. opening it for edit, not executing it) then it is NOT a show stopper. It happens to me occasionally using Quest TOAD and Oracle RDBMS. But what is important is that other users are isolated from what is happening in my session.

Bottom line here is that a simple quote from the reviewer does not tell me what he really means. Jumping to any conclusion about OSS from a statement such as this seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to an anecdotal reference. I base my dec isions on hard-core testing, not magazine articles.

Um, I think your FIRST problem is that you are turning to InfoWorld as a useful source of information. I've been "unsubscribing" lately from most of these "free" magazines because, honestly, they are just full of crap. Half of the articles have as much depth as a glass of water and the other half are just wrong. Or boring.

There's better info out on blogs. Do more research into the issues via Google and see if maybe the writer's turn of phrase was perhaps just bad writing, or bad editing.

The point is that the author said the server froze up and that was not a show-stopper. Whether or not he misunderstood what had really happened technically is a moot point.

Furthermore, I don't even care about that anyway. If I have to ask users to stand on one leg and cross their toes when they use my application because it may lock up periodically, then the reason for the lockup is a show-stopper. Period - end of story. Thanks, but no.

Microsoft goes open source


Got your attention, didn't I?


The latest wmf vulnerability is just another example of why Microsoft must change its OS product model in order to keep its market share in the future. This vulnerability has existed in the OS for over 15 years. Obviously if the source code to their OS were open source, geeks-hackers-enthusiasts-professionals would have caught the "hole" a long time ago.

This situation makes one wonder how many undiscovered vulnerabilities still remain hidden in the OS.

A recent article in Information Week states that last year, Unix and Linux had 2,328 vulnerabilities, while Microsoft Windows only had 812. The stats were compiled by US-CERT (United Stated Computer Emergency Readiness Team).

Now how does the wmf vulnerability fit into such a statistic? The wmf problem has been around for 15 years.

Does that mean it only made the 2005 stat because that's when it was discovered?

Of course.

Going on that same logic, the more vulnerabilities that are found, the better and more secure the OS is.

For example,

Say I create a program in C, C++, C# (whatever), and that I distribute the program but hold on to the source code. Now if anyone uses it and has a problem, notices a security issue, or wants to add a feature, they have to go through me.

Now what if someone else creates a different program with the same functionality, but instead of keeping the source code, they release the source to the public. Instead of making profit from selling the software, that person decides to make profit from selling support.

The entire world can look at the source code, make modifications, look for security holes, add features, etc.

More vulnerabilities will INEVITABLY be found because more pairs of eyes are reviewing the code. (If you don't believe that, then explain to me how the WMF problem could have remained for 15 years if people actually reviewed that code).

That statistic from CERT does NOT show how many of those problems were fixed, how fast they were fixed, nor how critical they were.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Linux zealot.

I use windows xp pro, and Cent OS (a linux red hat distro). Some day when I get enough $ together I will be buying my first mac.

Windows could be a much better OS and even more popular throughout the world if Microsoft made the following changes:


1) Create a new OS from the ground up. From the beginning of its creation, think security, networkability, and usability.

2) Release that source code to the public.

3) Create a virtual machine OS or sandbox to run all current and future proprietory(Non open source) programs like Microsoft Office XP or 2003 to run in. That way, any bugs in the software won't bring down the entire new open source OS, just the sandbox. (A colleague of mine pointed out they recently purchased (Connectix)

4) Call the new OS WINIX.

5) Call the sandbox WEWIN.

6) Sell service and support for the propriatory end.

7) Watch the world use the new OS.


Obviously Im not Microsoft. I can't tell them what to do. But I believe this is the key to their future...

or at least the key to my future using their products.

I think its pretty obivious that MySql is on a different development cycle than Oracle and SqlServer. Its *2006*. MySql 5 has *just added* stored procedures. How much sense does it make to compare it to SqlServer 2005 forchrissakes? This makes about as much sense as comparing SqlServer 6 (or 2005 if you want to be a total zealot) to the "competing" version of Oracle. These applications have different niches. When we say that something is not a show-stopper, it is helpful to declare exactly what the "show" is. 'SqlServer won't install on Linux' is a show stopper when the show is a Linux based application. The cost of Oracle is a show stopper for a small business. Perhaps "real" developers get to stipulate to their clients that they will only develop against Oracle, SqlSvr, Apache, IIS, Java, .Net, perl, etc. I am forced to work with what my client has. MySql 5 has stored procedures. Great. They don't quite work yet. Ok, I can wait -- dynamic sql still works. I'm certainly not going to suggest that my client buy a unix box, an oracle license, hire a sys/db admin, etc, just because I'm a "real" developer and have a hard on for the "security benefits" of stored procs.

By the way, the whole notion of "real" software is misguided. What's "real" software? Air traffic control system? Online banking systems? Hospital record system? Small business accounting system? A Church's website? Gimme a break!

Biased?!! The whole software industry is biased: "If I don't use it, it sucks." Look at this page.

BTW, Red Cent, you're funny dude! Go tell Gates how to make Windows even more popular. What would that mean? WinCE running on every shoe, zipper, doornob. Windows Vista on every loaf of bread. People will need to operate a pc with each hand to find enough use for your WINIX. I suppose MS could develop WINIX. Or they can continue to develop .net and windows along the lines that the have been doing for the past 7 or 8 years. Perhaps your idea is better. You'd never know. I think you should run with it.

"Respect" and "Open-Source." There is real irony in that conjunction. The central "problem" with open source is the complete lack of respect that the open source community has for users. Can you imagine what would happen if MS adopted a "RTFM" policy towards its customers. Or started distributing Make files instead of installation apps. I don't think that the open source folks need "real respect." They seem to be motoring along fine on contempt.