Microsoft Plays Up Open Source 224
An anonymous reader writes "Recently Microsoft's open source software lab posted PostgreSQL on Windows: A Primer. Postgres is one of the longest running open source databases — it has been around for nearly 11 years. The powerful object-relational database is a direct competitor to other OSS databases, as well as Microsoft's SQL Server 2005. So why is Microsoft promoting it? I get Redmond's interest in boosting anything that runs on Windows as a platform. Is this simply a case of left-hand, right-hand, or is something deeper going on?"
What's going on here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's going on here? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's going on here? (Score:4, Informative)
My only wish is that they'd produce a PostgreSQL Engine version - basically PostgreSQL without the help or extraneous fluff which automatically installs without icons or anything. The DB is far, far smaller that MSDE (cut down MS SQL Server 2000) or MS SQL Server Express 2005, has most of the same features and no restrictions on use or database capacity. I work on a project that uses MSDE and the thing is a bitch to configure and make work. If I didn't have 1000+ SQL statements and 1 million lines of C++ to port, I would switch to PostgreSQL in an instant.
Still doesn't make much sense that MS should promote it though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's going on here? - But MSSQL is free too! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's going on here? - But MSSQL is free too! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, is IBM's DB2 really "free no matter how much data you have"?
Re:What's going on here? - But DB2 is free too! (Score:2)
The only restrictions relate to the number of CPUs( 2 max-single or dual core) and the amount of system memory( 4 GB max ):
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/technology/ar
It's not about software, it's about consulting (Score:3, Interesting)
While that's not money any of us as individuals would sneeze at, I doubt that's the money Microsoft cares about. The big money is surely in support, and Microsoft is leaving that money on the table if it insists, based on foolish pride, that it won't support stuff it didn't develop.
Large companies like Microsoft ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's going on here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1: Convince company to run postgres on windows.
Step 2: Postgress run like crap.
Step 3: Convince customer that it is postgres and *not* windows that is the problem.
Step 4: Get customer to use MSSQL
Step 5: Profit
Step 6: ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 2: Postgress run like crap.
Step 3: Convince customer that it is postgres and *not* windows that is the problem.
The problem for Microsoft is that Postgres runs very well indeed on all other operating systems. Developers are by definition slightly more knowledgable than end-users; and will abandon Windows Server if this happened. Microsoft's moves to improve PHP performance on Windows servers might also be in the same direction.
Anyone wise enough to k
Re: (Score:2)
In the Windows world, it's relatively unusual to have to do that much tweaking to a piece of software to get the most out of it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If management initiates a project and wants to work on it themselves, you'd be an IDIOT to touch it. Why? Well, for a start, management is actually DOING something for once. Second, they find out you've been messing with their project behind their back... hope you didn't like your job. ESPECIALLY if they find out about the pocketing of money. The reasonable and smart thing to do would have been to explain the benefits (they're management, they think and BREATHE "cost-ef
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might still backfire (Score:2)
The whole "FOSS on Windows" strategy might backfire in this case, especially when dealing with MPFOSS (Multiple Platform Free Open Source Software), and especially again when there is a performance improvement involved with an alternative operating system such as linux.
Step 1: Convin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft employees use MSDN for documentation just like everybody else. While it is possible that they have access to better support options than the average developer (i.e. their friends that work on the Windows team can given them
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's going on here? At least they are honest! (Score:2)
"PostgreSQL uses a process-oriented architecture similar to that of Apache 1.3, where each request is handled by an independent process. The native Windows port has not used the Windows preferred thread-oriented architecture. For this reason, one should expect performance on Windows to be lower, especially where large numbers of small queries are executed."
Personally, I use PostgreSQL on Linux as my database, and ASP.NET on IIS (Windows Server 2003)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds to me like your entire database requirements are trivial. For the rest of the world, these are serious issues.
Re: (Score:2)
"mmm pie"
Meaning Microsoft lost one piece (the db), but is definately going to go after the rest and try to cut it up how they want to.
Oh brother I should have elaborated more in that first comment..
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you design your app in a DB-independant way then fine, you can port to another DB, but that's alot more overhead than sticking with a DB that runs on multiple OS'es.
If they don't buy MS, they might buy Oracle or IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If they don't buy MS, they might buy Oracle or (Score:3, Interesting)
I tend to agree. Oracle is a huge company, and if lots of people used PG instead of Oracle, then it may mean more Windows sales over Unix/Linux sales. Even if they lose a bit of SQL-Server sales, the migration over to Windows may offset that. Perhaps the MS bean-counters calculated that gained Windows sales would offset lost SQL-Server sales. They maybe figure that OSS DB's will eat into *all* commercial D
Re:If they don't buy MS, they might buy Oracle or (Score:2)
maybe databases aren't profitable? (Score:3, Informative)
It is widely reported that Microsoft makes its money on Windows and Office. The other products earn little or even lose money. If this is true, it may make sense for Microsoft to attract people to Windows or keep them using Windows, by supporting PostgresSQL, even if it reduces their sales of their own database.
Re:maybe databases aren't profitable? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it isn't reported, and no, other products do make (lots of) money. It's very easy to look it up too: the breakdown of earnings per division can be found here [microsoft.com]. You can see that out of 5 divisions, 3 are operating at a gain, and two at a loss. The Entertainment and Devices Division (XBox) and Online Services Business (MSN) are in the red. Windows, Office and SQL Server are in the black
The business division of interest for this particular article is Server And Tools, makers of SQL Server. Here's what Business Week says about this division here [businessweek.com]: Microsoft's server and tools business, long Microsoft's lone growth engine, had another blowout period, posting its 18th consecutive quarter of double-digit growth. Its SQL server database software posted particularly sharp gains, up 30% for the period. That helped the division's sales jump 17% to $2.9 billion
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to be correct that SQL server is profitable. I note, however, that the figures you cite are consistent with what I said is reported (the big moneymakers are the ones I cited and two of the five divisions are losing money), and they don't in any way refute my statement as to what is widely reported. Here [theregister.co.uk], for example, is a report of the type that I mentioned, which is the first hit returned by Google on "Microsoft profit breakdown Office Windows". You will of course note that I indicated that I d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhh... Yes, they do. Sorry.
Here, for example, is a report of the type that I mentioned, which is the first hit returned by Google on "Microsoft profit breakdown Office Windows".
If you had bothered to look at the article you're citing you may have observed it was published in 2002. Long past its shelf life, in an industry as dynamic as software.
You will of course note that I indicated that I didn't know whe
Postgres is much more than 10 years old (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullshit summary as usual... (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, an article on Port 25 is not promotion. It does not count as mainstream media by any stretch.
Remember the ads on TV.. where there's a forklift, lifting up what looks like battery cells... and placing them on top of a huge building... and then you see, SQL Server 2005. If Microsoft replaces those ads with Postgres instead; we can call it promotion... not until then.
Many firms (like mine) would like to use the manpower conversant with and trained on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We aren't an MS development company. We happen to develop and deliver IT solutions to customers mainly in the BFSI segment. Ironically, the biggest cost in s/w development happens to be trained manpower; and using
One of our important offerings for the stock brokers is built around
Re: (Score:2)
[Emphasis mine]
That's about the scariest thing I've ever heard. Assuming that BFSI is "Business, Financial Services, and Insurance" (the first link on a Google search for "BFSI"), at least you're (probably) not writing code that's directly dealing with life and death situations, but I can't imagine the kinds of WTFs are being produced by your cheap, "brains free" workforce. Even monotonous coding requires some thought, or
Re: (Score:2)
Even more if you hire unproductive people that keep doing the same stuff again and again... Brains-freely...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's not. It's SMTP
MS is not really so monolithic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's a really odd question for slashdot.... (Score:2)
This might have two functions: stop people from using competitors DB products and allow those that want to use PostgreSQL to do so on MS platforms. It is more probably a monkey see, monkey do reaction to Oracle and oth
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes they do OK. Can you say X Box? I do agree, that it is just OK and not the leader. Many of their other products can be listed as also ran.
Has anyone seen the sales figures for the Zune online store?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is only Anti-GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Because PostgreSQL isn't licenced under the GNU GPL.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the jury is still out on the Microsoft-Novell deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet it hasn't happened yet. Your warning has been shouted from the mountain tops in some form or another for over twenty years. Yet it hasn't happened yet. Python, Apache, FreeBSD, Postres, Xorg, etc, have not been taken over by Microsoft. They have not been embraced, extended and extinguished. Nor is it likely they ever will be.
Stop obsessing on a horrible future that will never arrive, and live in the present instead. The nature of F
Re: (Score:2)
Because PostgreSQL isn't licenced under the GNU GPL.
Unless MS is coming out with MS-Postgre++, I don't see how that matters much.Re:Microsoft is only Anti-GPL (Score:4, Funny)
The best friend of MS are those that develop ... (Score:2)
Re:The best friend of MS are those that develop .. (Score:2)
Well embracing 'free' software is a double edged sword for MS. In the short term people stay with Windows but ultimately provides a migration path:
Furthering their extortion (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they beleive they have a solid case that postgressql infringes on their patents. They want more companies using it (and to know who) so they know who they can take to court and extort some protection money.
Maybe Microsoft planted the code in postgressql and now they want to spring a trap?
Given Micro$oft history, certainly not impossible. Plenty of people would do a cvs commit for $10G under the table. Corporate style espionage. Microsoft is a beached whale threatening to sue it's customers. Lets
My enemies' enemies are my friends (Score:4, Informative)
Am I the only one.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Embrace. <-- You are here
Extend.
Extinguish.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, this isn't a case of the 3e approach. All they did was install Postgres on windows and write up a step by step installation doc with a few tips discovered in the process. There is nothing on their interpretation of whether it is good or bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Microsoft was at Extort, you are missing a few steps...
Envy
Embrace
Extend
Exacerbate
Extinguish
Extort - M$ is here
Emplode
Re: (Score:2)
Let me be the first to say (Score:2, Funny)
You get people to get off this (Score:2, Interesting)
I just corrected this myth here yesterday! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Riiiiight.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/u
Seeya.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
It may be a shock to you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think calling MS (or anyone else in the US) a criminal based o
Nice Equivocation! (Score:2)
If you have proof that MS has engaged in criminal behavior (using the other meaning of "criminal") I suggest you contact the appropriate authorities. Until then, please forgive me if I don't take your word for it.
Re: (Score:2)
However, if the discussion is about the RIAA or MPAA, there is only one definition of criminal, one definition of legal, and stealing is a really distinctly defined term.
Welcome to Slashdot!
Microsoft has always supported BSD license (Score:5, Interesting)
Where they have the biggest problem is with GPL'd stuff, which they can't use at all. Of course in this particular situation there are other factors involved, but since they have been addressed by others, I will not repeat them here.
Re:Microsoft strongly prefers BSD license to GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And as for the other point, what I was saying more specifically was, "Microsoft can not use GPL software the way they want to." Of course I didn't use all those words, I merely implied it, but I thought the meaning would be clear to anyone reading. Apparently not.
Re: (Score:2)
Two things
1. Your blanket statement that GPL code is better than Microsoft code is just as ludicrous as when Microsoft makes the opposite comment
2. I seriou
Cancel or allow (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they're canning SQL Server? (Score:2)
No idea of the profit for SQL Server, but it would make sense to chop it if it didn't make the 20000% margin Office and Windows make.
(/sarcasm)
Both MS and Sun Promote Postgres (Score:2)
It's all about the money. Keeping it out of the hands of competitors and available to be spent on Microsoft products. While Microsoft would rather have you buy SQL Server than Oracle, they'd also rather you use Postgres than buy Oracle.
And PHP on IIS7 (Score:2)
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2006/10/31
Apparently competition sucks when Linux is on the trailing edge, eh?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I alway
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course if Windows actually implemented the POSIX thread APIs, it would be easier to port threaded code to and from Windows. There are workarounds and libraries for the lack of a full POSIX API stack under Windows (and maybe some flavours of Windows included the APIs), but the general issue is not whether people will write threaded code, but whether Microsoft will allow threaded code written to the published industry standards.
There is only one company responsible for a lack of industry standard APIs
Re: (Score:2)
But, performance would still suck, as fork() (or it's equivalent) is a lot more expensive on Windows than on Unix, and this is one of the bigger drivers for moving from a multi-process model to a multi-threaded model on Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most people who use databases don't make much use of the advanced features. This is why MySQL is even in the market. I like MS SQL server a lot - it's good DB server, but most of the stuff done on it could just as easily be done on PostgreSQL. Good old select, insert, update, delete covers a lot of ground. The pressure with commercial software is to add new features in new versions, regardless of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On a different note, I've never liked the idea of having a heavy database - i.e. one with code procedures etc. It seems to make more sense to keep the database as just a database and implement your model logic in the model classes of what ever access it. That way you can change the database fairly easily and aren't ti
Referential integrity (Score:2)
There are two reasons to have a database: fast search ability, and to ensure your data is cohesive, complete, and correct. A good RDBMS will allow you to code the *information* logic (rather than "business logic") into the datastore. That way, even if you have two or three or a dozen different parts accessing the same pieces of data, you can make sure they treat the data the same way.
That's one of the differences between a good RDBMS like MySQL, and a great one,
Re: (Score:2)
You also waste a lot of time shipping information back and forth between the servers for processing when it could all be done locally on the database server.
You also have to worry about consistency, because if anything EVER (even in the future when things may change at your company) talks directly to the database instead of being built specifically with th
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to Postgresql, MSSql Server is rubbish.
And who on earth would put a production database on an operating system that cannot run headless? (Hint try booting windows with no screen or keyboard).
Never send a boy to do a man's job. If you want your data, then you want Postgres, probably on Solaris or FreeBSD, and you certainly do not want MS in your server room(s).
Re: (Score:2)
Quite nice, and breathe taking. However, MSSQL isn't far above and beyond Postgres. Especially if you cons
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly haven't used either Postgres or any other serious database. SQL Server is only marginally better than the Sybase offering that it was based on - it has poor standards conformance and doesn't scale. In fact, that second point makes it worse than Sybase, which like Postgres I can put on a decent sized machine running an OS that scales well. In terms of features, Postgres wins on most counts compared to SQL Server. The Postgres dialect of SQL conforms closely to standards (although there are some d
Re: (Score:2)
Having worked on a project that successfully migrated from MSSQL server TO PostgreSQL for performance reasons (although database server operating system was also changed) I can tell you that your opinion about the relative 'leagues' of Postgres and MSSQL is demonstrably false.
Throughput absolutely sucks in MS-SQL server. The locking system is a total mess (mostly inheirited from Sybase). PostgreSQL has an annoying requirement that the database must be 'vacuumed' periodly (this is due to the
Oh the tricks of the mind! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From the tests I've seen reported -- Ah, that's a B-I-G NO!
One test in particular (c. 2001?), SQL Server started crapping out in a power curve after a couple hundred connections. PostgreSQL (and MySQL) performance degraded linearly about the same as Oracle and DB2.
From a recorded talk I heard it is my understanding the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This'll probably only work before Microsoft starts 'patching' the OS and ends up detuning VMwares performance. All by