Translation from UNIX to Win32:
http://www.byte.com/art/9410/sec14/art3.htm

Tue, 7 May 2002 12:46:30 -0700
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>
Re: OK, lets talk portability.
> Translation from UNIX to Win32:
> http://www.byte.com/art/9410/sec14/art3.htm

The problem here is that the strategies getting sold aren't "How Do We Make it 
Portable?" ones, but rather "How do we port it to Windows, and throw away the 
Unix version?"

The "neat technologies" are _not_ portability ventures, but rather porting 
ventures, one way trips down the "Richmond Highway."

To have something that will truly be portable, it can't directly use fork().  
It has to use [something else] which gets translated at compile time to 
fork(), on Unix, and presumably to CreateProcess() on Windows.

It's probably possible; I doubt it's simple nor much of an improvement.

And it begs the question: Is it really greatly advantageous to invoke a lot of 
"breakage" on existing code just to get the engine to work on Windows, when 
"Windows 2004" will probably have some built-in DBMS technology that tries to 
kill off _all_ Windows-based DBMSes that don't come from Microsoft?
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/rdbms.html
It is better to be a smart ass than a dumb ass. 

-- 
(concatenate 'string "chris" "@cbbrowne.com")
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
"The  primary  difference  between  computer  salesmen  and  used  car
salesmen is that used car salesmen know when they're lying to you."
Tue, 07 May 2002 18:06:51 -0400
cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com
Re: OK, lets talk portability. 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lamar Owen [mailto:lamar.owen@wgcr.org] 
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 10:50 AM
> To: Bruce Momjian; Tom Lane
> Cc: Sir Mordred The Traitor; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0007: 
> Remove DoS in PostgreSQL
> 
> 
> On Monday 26 August 2002 12:59 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > It may indeed make sense to put a range check here, but 
> I'm getting 
> > > tired of hearing the words "dos attack" applied to 
> conditions that 
> > > cannot be exploited to cause any real problem.  All you are 
> > > accomplishing is to spread FUD among people who aren't 
> sufficiently 
> > > familiar with the code to evaluate the seriousness of problems...
> 
> > It isn't fun to have our code nit-picked apart, and Sir-* is 
> > over-hyping the vulnerability, but it is a valid concern.  
> The length 
> > should probably be clipped to a reasonable length and a 
> comment put in 
> > the code describing why.
> 
> The pseudo-security-alert format used isn't terribly 
> palatable here, IMHO.  On 
> BugTraq it might fly -- but not here. 

An alarmist style when posting a serious error is a good idea.
"Hey guys, I found a possible problem..."
Does not seem to generate the needed level of excitement.
DOS attacks means that business stops.  I think that should generate a
furrowed brow, to say the least.

> A simple 'Hey guys, I 
> found a possible 
> problem when.....' without the big-sounding fluff would sit 
> better with me, 
> at least.  The substance of the message is perhaps valuable 
> -- but the 
> wrapper distracts from the substance.

As long as the needed data is included (here is how to reproduce the
problem...) I don't see any problem.
 
> And dealing with a real name would be nice, IMHO.  Otherwise 
> we may end up 
> with 'SMtT' as the nickname -- Hmmm, 'SMitTy' perhaps?  :-)  
> Reminds me of 
> 'Uncle George' who did quite a bit for the Alpha port and 
> then disappeared.

If he wants to call himself 'Sir Modred' or 'Donald Duck' or 'Jack the
Ripper' or whatever, I don't see how it matters.  He is providing a
valuable service by location of serious problems.  These are the sort of
thing that must be addressed.  This is the *EXACT* sort of information
that is needed to make PostgreSQL become as robust as Oracle,
SQL*Server, DB/2, etc.

Every free database engine project should be so lucky as to have a 'Sir
Modred'

IMO-YMMV.

Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:23:49 -0700
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>
Re: @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0007: Remove DoS in PostgreSQL
> An alarmist style when posting a serious error is a good idea.  "Hey
> guys, I found a possible problem..."  Does not seem to generate the
> needed level of excitement.  DOS attacks means that business stops.  I
> think that should generate a furrowed brow, to say the least.

Obviously people have forgotten past history.  The Symbolics guys had
_great_ techniques for this that were well documented:

It is considered artful to append many messages on a subject, leaving
only the most inflammatory lines from each, and reply to all in one
swift blow.  The choice of lines to support your argument can make or
break your case.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
State opinions in the syntax of fact: "...as well as the bug in LMFS
where you have to expunge directories to get rid of files....."
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
People can be set wondering by loading obscure personal patchable
systems, and sending bug reports.  Who would not stop and wonder upon
seeing "Experimental TD80-TAPE 1.17, MegaDeath 2.5..."?  The same for
provocatively-named functions and variables in stack traces.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
Know the list of "large, chronic problems".  If there is any problem
with the window system, blame it on the activity system.  Any lack of
user functionality should be attributed to the lack of a command
processor.  A suprisingly large number of people will believe that you
have thought in depth about the issue to which you are alluding when you
do.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
Know how to blow any problem up into insolubility.  Know how to use the
phrase "The new ~A system" to insult its argument, e.g., "I guess this
destructuring LET thing is fixed in the new Lisp system", or better yet,
PROLOG.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
Never hit someone head on, always sideswipe.  Never say, "Foo's last
patch was brain-damaged", but rather, "While fixing the miscellaneous
bugs in 243.xyz [foo's patch], I found...."
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
Idiosyncratic indentations, double-spacing, capitalization, etc., while
stamps of individuality, leave one an easy target for parody.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
Strong language gets results.  "The  reloader is completely broken  in
242" will open  a lot more eyes than  "The reloader doesn't load files
with intermixed spaces, asterisks,  and <'s in   their names that  are
bigger than 64K".  You can always say the latter in a later paragraph.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
Including a destination in the CC list that will cause the recipients'
mailer to blow out is a good way to stifle dissent.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
When  replying, it  is  often possible  to cleverly edit  the original
message in such a way  as to subtly alter  its meaning or tone to your
advantage while  appearing that you are  taking pains  to preserve the
author's intent.   As a   bonus,   it will   seem that your   superior
intellect is cutting through all the excess verbiage to the very heart
of the matter.  -- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
Referring to undocumented  private communications allows one to  claim
virtually anything: "we discussed this idea in  our working group last
year, and concluded that it was totally brain-damaged".
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
Points  are awarded for   getting   the last   word in.   Drawing  the
conversation out so long  that the original  message disappears due to
being indented off the right hand edge of the screen is  one way to do
this.  Another is to imply that  anyone replying further is a hopeless
cretin and is wasting everyone's valuable time.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
Keeping a secret "Hall Of Flame" file  of people's mail indiscretions,
or copying messages to  private mailing lists for subsequent derision,
is good  fun  and also  a worthwhile  investment  in case  you need to
blackmail  the senders later.   -- from  the Symbolics Guidelines  for
Sending Mail
%
Users should cultivate an ability to make the simplest molehill into a
mountain   by   finding   controversial interpretations   of innocuous
sounding statements that the sender never intended or imagined.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
Obversely, a lot of  verbal mileage can  also be gotten by sending out
incomprehensible, cryptic,  confusing or unintelligible  messages, and
then iteratively  "correcting"  the "mistaken  interpretations" in the
replys.  -- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
Trivialize   a user's bug report  by  pointing out that   it was fixed
independently long ago in a system that hasn't been released yet.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
%
Send  messages calling for fonts  not  available to the  recipient(s).
This can (in the case of Zmail) totally disable the user's machine and
mail system for up to a whole day in some circumstances.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" "@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/emacs.html
Frisbeetarianism: The belief that when  you die, your  soul goes up on
the roof and gets stuck...



Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:34:02 -0400
cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com
How To Make Things Appear More Dramatic
On Monday 26 August 2002 02:23 pm, Dann Corbit wrote:
> An alarmist style when posting a serious error is a good idea.
> "Hey guys, I found a possible problem..."
> Does not seem to generate the needed level of excitement.
> DOS attacks means that business stops.  I think that should generate a
> furrowed brow, to say the least.

The historical style on this list has avoided histrionics -- although I have 
myself been guilty of the hyperbole problem.  Making a big stink in no wise 
guarantees it being heard, and may very well cause some to bristle, as Tom 
has done.  It just doesn't fit the style of this list, that's all.

> As long as the needed data is included (here is how to reproduce the
> problem...) I don't see any problem.

When you have to read and process nearly 1,000 e-mails a day (as I have had to 
do, although my average is a mere 400 or so per day), the subject line and 
the first screenful of the message will be looked at, and no more.  The 
substance needs to be early in the message, and the subject needs to be short 
and descriptive.  These are just simply traditions, protocols, and ettiquette 
for Internet mailing lists, as well as other fora such as Usenet.

If someone wants me to pay attention to a message, the subject needs to be on 
the point, and the point needs to be early in the message.  Otherwise I may 
simply be so rushed when it arrives in my mailboxen (more than one, as I have 
autorouting mail filters in place) that it gets ignored.  I know I am not 
alone in processing mail this way.

> > And dealing with a real name would be nice, IMHO.  Otherwise
> > we may end up

> If he wants to call himself 'Sir Modred' or 'Donald Duck' or 'Jack the
> Ripper' or whatever, I don't see how it matters.  He is providing a
> valuable service by location of serious problems.  These are the sort of
> thing that must be addressed.  This is the *EXACT* sort of information
> that is needed to make PostgreSQL become as robust as Oracle,
> SQL*Server, DB/2, etc.

I'm sorry, but I have more respect for someone who isn't afraid to use their 
real name.  I've been on both sides of that fence.  Even in the security 
business, where people routinely use pseudonyms, I personally prefer to know 
their real name.  If I _know_ Aleph One is Elias Levy, then that's easy 
enough.  If the information is easily available, then that's enough.  

So, it makes a difference to me, like it, lump it, or think it's insane.

And, yes, I agree he IS providing a valuable service -- with that I have no 
complaints.  But there is a distinct civility and culture to this list, and 
I'd like to see it stay that way.
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:40:54 -0400
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0007: Remove DoS in PostgreSQL
Lamar Owen wrote:
> And, yes, I agree he IS providing a valuable service -- with that I have no 
> complaints.  But there is a distinct civility and culture to this list, and 
> I'd like to see it stay that way.

Well, when someone is a "Sir", we do give them a little more latitude. 

(Oh, hold one, that isn't his real name.  I see now.)  ;-)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:49:38 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0007: Remove DoS in PostgreSQL
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Hoffmann [mailto:jeff@propertykey.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 8:54 PM
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Are we losing momentum?
> 
> 
> Mike Mascari wrote:
> > cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com wrote:
> >>I wouldn't be too sanguine about that, from two perspectives:
> >>
> >> a) There's a moving target, here, in that Microsoft seems to be
> >>    looking for the next "new thing" to be the elimination of
> >>    the use of "files" in favor of the filesystem being treated
> >>    as a database.

This is a very, very good idea.  In fact IBM has been doing it for
years.  For that matter, so has OpenVMS.  What's that -- 30 year old
technology?

I have always thought that a native file system should be a hierarchy
like Adabas(IBM Mainframe), DBMS(OpenVMS) or Raima(PC's & UNIX) for a
model.  It is a very natural fit.  The OS contains disk devices which
contain directories, subdirectories, and files.  Set ownership model
seems to fit perfectly.

> > They ought to get their database up to speed first, it 
> seems to me. I 
> > agree Microsoft's view of data management is a moving target.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that there's a significant number of NT 4 
> servers still out there -- what is that, 7 years old?  A lot 
> of places 
> aren't upgrading because they don't need to & don't want to shell out 
> the cash.  (And it should go without saying that Microsoft is 
> none too 
> happy with it.)  With Windows 2K3 just coming out and who 
> knows how much 
> longer until the next version (or ther version after that, who knows 
> when these "features" will actually show up), there's still a 
> significant window in there for conventional database servers, 
> especially for the price conscious out there.

SQL*Server is a very good database.  The optimizer is outstanding for
complex queries.

There are clearly places where PostgreSQL does have a distinct
advantage.  Price a 1000 user system for SQL*Server and PostgreSQL and
you will see that we can hire a couple of DBA's just for the price
difference.  Since you can purchase PostgreSQL support, that is no
longer a significant advantage for MS.

And about MySQL:
It's also commercial.  You are not supposed to use it except for a
single machine for personal use unless you are a non-profit organization
or unless absolutely everything you do is GPL[1].  Hence, you have to
license it to deploy applications.  In order to have transactions, you
have to use another commercial product that they bolt into MySQL --
Sleepycat software's database.  Now you have two license systems to
worry about. 

Compared to PostgreSQL, both of these tools cost an arm and a leg.
SQL*Server is closed.  You have to rely on MS to fix any problems that
crop up.  MySQL has a very restrictive license [for those who might
happen to bother to read such things] for both modifications to the code
and also redistribution of applications.

[1] I realize that people cheat on this all the time.  In theory, they
could all go to jail for it.  It is certainly not a risk I would be
willing to take.  I have also bumped into people who had no idea that
commercial use requires a commercial license for MySQL.  There are
probably lots of people in that boat too.


Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:30:23 -0700
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>
Re: Are we losing momentum?
> And about MySQL:
> It's also commercial.  You are not supposed to use it except for a
> single machine for personal use unless you are a non-profit organization
> or unless absolutely everything you do is GPL[1].  Hence, you have to
> license it to deploy applications.  In order to have transactions, you
> have to use another commercial product that they bolt into MySQL --
> Sleepycat software's database.  Now you have two license systems to
> worry about.

Just a correction - you need to use the InnoDB database engine, which is
free and GPL and bundled with MySQL.

Chris


Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:42:04 +0800
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: Are we losing momentum?
Dann Corbit wrote:
> There are clearly places where PostgreSQL does have a distinct
> advantage.  Price a 1000 user system for SQL*Server and PostgreSQL and
> you will see that we can hire a couple of DBA's just for the price
> difference.  Since you can purchase PostgreSQL support, that is no
> longer a significant advantage for MS.

Start looking at "Enterprise" licenses for any of the big guys and the
pricing does get pretty scary.

> And about MySQL: It's also commercial.  You are not supposed to use it
> except for a single machine for personal use unless you are a
> non-profit organization or unless absolutely everything you do is
> GPL[1].

On the one hand, if they are calling it "Open Source", then this is NOT
a fair statement.

On the other hand, if you look at their web site, they certainly do tip
their hat to the FUD/Paranoia about the "infectiveness" of the GPL.

They don't expressly say:
  "Yes, you should be paranoid about the GPL because it infects anything
   it ever touches with some frightening license virus worse than SARS."

Instead, they loudly use the line "... for users who prefer not to be
restricted by the terms of the GPL", of course, neither confirming or
denying any particular paranoia about what the impact of those terms may
or may not be.

> Hence, you have to license it to deploy applications.  In order to
> have transactions, you have to use another commercial product that
> they bolt into MySQL -- Sleepycat software's database.  Now you have
> two license systems to worry about.

Incorrect.  You have to use another commercial product that they bolt
onto MySQL -- InnoDB, from the Norwegian company, Innobase.
<http://www.innodb.com/>

Sleepycat DB was used to prototype the notion of having transactions,
but since that introduces Yet Another Continent to the set of licensing
complications, and probably wasn't sufficiently 'in their interests,'
it's not the Preferred Transactional Engine...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/oses.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #217. "If I'm wearing the key to the hero's
shackles around  my neck and  his former girlfriend now  volunteers to
become my mistress and we are all alone in my bedchamber on my bed and
she offers  me a goblet of  wine, I will politely  decline the offer."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>


Tue, 15 Apr 2003 00:56:12 -0400
cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com
Re: Are we losing momentum? 
On Monday 14 April 2003 09:30 pm, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> And about MySQL:
> It's also commercial.  You are not supposed to use it except for a
> single machine for personal use unless you are a non-profit organization
> or unless absolutely everything you do is GPL[1].  Hence, you have to
> license it to deploy applications.  In order to have transactions, you
> have to use another commercial product that they bolt into MySQL --
> Sleepycat software's database.  Now you have two license systems to
> worry about.
>
> Compared to PostgreSQL, both of these tools cost an arm and a leg.
> SQL*Server is closed.  You have to rely on MS to fix any problems that
> crop up.  MySQL has a very restrictive license [for those who might
> happen to bother to read such things] for both modifications to the code
> and also redistribution of applications.
>
> [1] I realize that people cheat on this all the time.  In theory, they
> could all go to jail for it.  It is certainly not a risk I would be
> willing to take.  I have also bumped into people who had no idea that
> commercial use requires a commercial license for MySQL.  There are
> probably lots of people in that boat too.

Can you point me to the relevent portions of the license?

I tried to go through the license, but it basically seemed free (as in GPL) to 
me. My impression is that you can't statically link Sleepycat's Berkeley DB 
with software unless it is released under a free license (reasonable, kind of 
like the GPL, if you consider that reasonable). They sell a commercial 
version, which allows you to statically link it. I sort of get the same idea 
from MySQL: as long as you aren't trying to distribute it, you're fine (even 
in-house changes).

Also, aren't mysql and sleepycat in the standard distribution of Debian? I 
would think the debian developers would be interested to know if the likes of 
sleepycat and mysql don't abide by the DFSG. That's actually one of the 
things I've always liked about Debian: read one set of guidelines, and trust 
the developers to ensure compliance across the entire OS (as long as you stay 
our of non-free). At least, so I thought...

Regards,
	Jeff Davis


Mon, 14 Apr 2003 22:07:27 -0700
Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org>
Re: Are we losing momentum?
On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 06:07, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Also, aren't mysql and sleepycat in the standard distribution of Debian? I 
> would think the debian developers would be interested to know if the likes of 
> sleepycat and mysql don't abide by the DFSG. That's actually one of the 
> things I've always liked about Debian: read one set of guidelines, and trust 
> the developers to ensure compliance across the entire OS (as long as you stay 
> our of non-free). At least, so I thought...

I looked at the copyright information on the mysql-server package in
Debian and also at http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/MySQL_licenses.html:

The MySQL documentation is in non-free (and is not therefore officially
part of Debian).  MySQL itself is GPL, so you can do what you like with
it, whatever FUD their website puts out, so long as you make your source
code available.  If you want to fork MySQL, you can!

Sleepycat is free so long as source code is released.

-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight, UK                             http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
                 ========================================
     "And they questioned Him, saying "...Is it lawful for  
      us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? ...And He said to 
      them "...render to Caesar the things that are  
      Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."      
                      Luke 20:21,22,25 


15 Apr 2003 07:09:26 +0100
Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>
Re: Are we losing momentum?