Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
HP

+ - HP Cloud offers up free access to OpenStack->

Submitted by
krow
krow writes "HP Cloud is offering free access to Open Stack via its public cloud. Today adoption is growing around the Open Stack APIs, and we are offering up access to push tool integration and adoption around the API's. Most recently we have been able to add support for on-demand Jenkin's orchestration via the JCloud's plugin.

API, as well as console, access is being made to the computer, object storage, and CDN interfaces. There are images being provided for different Linux distributions, and additionally images for Bitnami, ActiveState's Stackato, and Enterprise DB's Postgres images. Hopefully the access can be used to drive adoption of the Open Source alternative to Amazon's APIs."

Link to Original Source

+ - Oracle backs out of the MySQL Conference-> 1

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Along side its move to to scuttle OpenSolaris, remove itself from the Open Office foundation, sue Google over its use of Java, Oracle has now removed itself from the MySQL Conference and is now pushing MySQL users to attend its own user group conference that it funds that has been placed on the same week as the O'Reilly conference. Is there any evidence left that Oracle has nothing but hostile intentions toward open source at this point?"
Link to Original Source

+ - Marten Mickos hints at a closed source Eucalyptus ->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "In a Network World article, Marten Mickos, former CEO of MySQL, talks about his opinions on a future open core world. His previous attempts at close sourcing open source software ended up with Sun pulling the plug on his plans. In the article he states his opinion that in order to derive revenue from open source, that some piece of it must be closed source. He mentioning that Eucalyptus is headed this way. Does this point to Ubuntu Cloud being eventually crippled in order to drive revenue back to his company?"
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:It's still basically MySQL. (Score 1) 41

by krow (#31446162) Attached to: Drizzle's Future Moving To Rackspace?

Hi!

MySQL "materializes" a view, but yes it does not have "Materialized Views".

For some views you can do a simple substitution, but not in all cases (for instance, SELECT * FROM A GROUP BY()). In that case you need the end result before you can execute the query.

I had little to do with the VIEW implementation, so I can't really say much about how it was designed. I am not crazy about how it works either.

Cheers,
      -Brian

Comment: Re:It's still basically MySQL. (Score 1) 41

by krow (#31442504) Attached to: Drizzle's Future Moving To Rackspace?

Hi!

I am not sure about the Windows version, but I know the Unix version is still process based. In my opinion, one of the principle advantages in this is that they can use functions which can leak/die/etc and not have to worry about it taking out the server. This is what allowed Apache to handle so many unstable languages/modules.

The problem with Views in MySQL is that they frequently materialized, aka in many queries the database chooses to generate a full table of the data and do the JOIN (and in some queries there is no way to get around that). Many other databases have had views for longer and can avoid materialization in a lot of cases.

Currently I haven't brought VIEWs back in at a user level. The closest thing we have in Drizzle we use table functions for our data dictionary (aka... information_schema) and we do not materialize there. MySQL does materialization when you look at those tables.

My goal is to bring back VIEW, but for the first generation of them avoid queries which would cause/require materialization.

Cheers,
      -Brian

Comment: Re:It's still basically MySQL. (Score 5, Informative) 41

by krow (#31442030) Attached to: Drizzle's Future Moving To Rackspace?

Hi!

Drizzle is transactional by default.

Bad data? We don't insert it, we toss an error (and if we don't in some cases, it is a bug).

We purposely went after the issues in the MySQL gotchas list when we began (http://sql-info.de/mysql/).

Our DDL? Soon will be transactional. Our data dictionary is federated out to engines, so unlike MySQL in our system the engine owns the definition so you can't end up in a situation where the engine is off from the definition.

I wouldn't make the assumption that because we have a similar ancestor that we are the same at all. It would be like assuming Postgres and Ingres are the same (which they are most certainly not).

When I first started doing the rewrite I considered Postgres (and spoke to a number of the developers of it at the time). In the first year I went back and forth in my head on that decision. There would have been a lot of things that would have made PG a better starting point. By the time we reached 5.1 the MySQL codebase was junk. Postgres would have made for a good decision but there were three drawbacks.

1) Postgres is C and not C++. I find that I can write code in C++ nowadays much faster then I can in C (and it comes out just as fast, the C++ "is slow" is an archaic view).

2) Postgres is not designed to use threads. I prefer to work with threads over processes (and there is a lot of good and bad with both concepts).

3) Sun wouldn't have paid for it ;)

I wouldn't consider SQLite. It is neither type safe, not concurrent. It is a great database, but it doesn't solve any of my needs. I did think about Firebird for a bit, but while I know the MySQL and Postgres codebase, I don't know the Firebird code at all.

Cheers,
      -Brian

Comment: Re:It's Monty again, having his cake and eating it (Score 1) 183

by krow (#31246922) Attached to: MySQL's Influence On the GPL

Hi!

"When it comes to Drizzle, you require the code to be under BSD; In practice this is a contributor agreement too."

We don't require contributions to be made under the BSD license, we do ask that new modules are, but that is all. From day one we have never mingled GPL and BSD headers in files. Derived work has always been derived work. We never have had as a goal for Drizzle to be embedded so copyright assignment is not required. Ask Kristian for the IRC conversation I once had with him on this topic where I explained my reasons for this (or... I'll just blog most of them up again: http://krow.livejournal.com/684329.html).

Richard's statements imply that a protocol is somehow wrapped up in licensing. In the US this is just not true (someone in another comment pointed out the Lotus Notes legal case where the FSF argued this itself ). Richard says all sort of things, but it doesn't make an ounce of them all true.

Bradley Kuhn has pointed out that while the FSF has done copyright assignment, it has promised to never assign its rights for commercial purposes. It also doesn't require sign over of all rights to a given body of code. It just asks for enough so that it can be a legal partner in the defense of the GPL should something come to court. That is very different in nature, to the code assignment that occurs when someone is assigning code to a commercial entity.

Cheers,
      -Brian

Comment: Re:It's Monty again, having his cake and eating it (Score 1) 183

by krow (#31245492) Attached to: MySQL's Influence On the GPL

Hi!

You should easily be able to find blog posts, comments, etc... from me over the years telling people exactly how far the GPL reached (this was an ongoing issue between me and others in MySQL for years, and is well known within the MySQL community).

The acquisition by Oracle, or even Sun, is not what matters. What matters is the state of the community, etc where this belief is still perpetuated. I found at SCALE that this was a topic that was still being discussed, and that there was a lot of confusion around it.

Which is why I blogged about it :)

I would also not go as far as saying all of the MySQL principals (or even the senior executives for that matter). Sit down sometime with David and I believe you might find a different answer.

Cheers,
      -Brian

Comment: Re:It's Monty again, having his cake and eating it (Score 4, Interesting) 183

by krow (#31239272) Attached to: MySQL's Influence On the GPL

Hi!

My article sounds like something Monty would publish? I don't think so, Monty is a firm believer that the GPL does influence the protocol (aka, you can have a GPL based protocol). If you would bother to read some of the published material around what was said for the benefit of the EU you would know that. Quite a bit of his argument to the EU is based on the belief that the protocol follows GPL.

Drizzle? Monty has nothing to do with Drizzle. He has never committed a line of code, and I doubt he has even looked at it. MariaDB, the databases he works on, is very different. The two are nothing alike other then sharing a common ancestor.

Once again Bruce, read up a bit, and get your facts straight.

Cheers,
      -Brian

Comment: Re:Monty's laboring under a misconclusion (Score 1) 212

by krow (#29842159) Attached to: Brian Aker Responds To RMS On Dual Licensing

That was never my decision, though I have advocated it.

It is hard to say what the right solution is. I find it sad to see how in some bsd projects few of the vendors who make use of the software participate in improving the base software. On the same token having a monopoly on source changes seems to also stifle innovation.

I believe we have yet to achieve the propper balance that will eventually be required.

TRANSACTION CANCELLED - FARECARD RETURNED

Working...