Re: Database port
Henry Keultjes wrote:enry Keultjes wrote:
>
> Mike:
>
> 1. There is no win32 front end. Current front-ends are green screen.
>
> 2. What is the standard Linux file system? You will have to admit that
> there are many choices, thus no standard. MD-Linux will take one of
> those and make it more capable so that it does allow the application
> from the Linux side and the existing MD applications to run as a single
> set of applications.
linux supports several different file systems, and even more recently,
but most will agree that ext2 is the "standard" file system at the
moment, and has been for years.
Are you proposing using a database engine as a file system?
>
> 3. "Porting" will be native.
>
Glad to hear it.
> 4. You name a type of business or type of organization and there is
> most likely an existing application. Each one of those will have
> $millions of work and experience in it and "rejuvenating" those
> applications is much easier than rewriting them in Linux. However, all
> those applications are already available to Linux because the same
> database that we will use to devise MD-Linux has already been ported to
> Linux and it is a super product. It is just that I want to take it a
> step further because it is a step further. Progress is inevitable.
>
Can you name this database?
> 5. In the enterprise application arena where I have been for the last
> twenty two years, the requirements are a lot more stringent than "just
> want the computer to do work". We are talking about applications like
> those that SAP, Baan, JD Edwards and Oracle Financials provide.
>
Are you planning on selling "enterprise" software to the typical
phisician with one or two doctors?
> 6. I did not want to get into specific of the GUI issue. However, the
> option to use the command line will be an essential part of all the
> applications.
>
Sounds good.
> 7. You suggest that we continue with the Linux and Unix concepts. The
> answer is most likely but we may find that there are places where we
> should divert. That is progress. Many MD people hate what I am
> proposing because it breaks the chains to the portability of
> applications that has been adhered to for 35 years. Look at what Linus
> did. He broke with the chains of the past. Better that we do the
> breaking within Linux than letting BG3 break us.
>
The point I wanted to make was "don't reinvent the wheel". Case in
point; using cron. Most people administrating a unix are familiar with
cron, so you don't need to create another scheduler. Case in point;
smtp, pop3 or imap. These are very capable email tools, and should
probably be used in your system.
In other words, don't reimplement standard tools just to lock in the
users to your product. The user should like your product so much, and
find it so useful that they wouldn't want to switch.
> 8. Yes they will have existing X86 machines in their office and those
> machines were obsolete before they arrived. They have been replacing
> machines at a very rapid pitch. What's wrong with one more cycle and
> than slowing it down. That's what PPC is all about, getting away from
> the cat chasing its tail!
>
Linux is known for taking old machines and making them useful. You
could at least make the client available on other platforms such as x86
m68k, or even open source, and be helpful to developers that want to
port that code. Hopefully, it wouldn't have endian problems.
> 9. I can't ever be thankful for choosing Debian unless we get the
> project running on DEbian. It's a Catch 22!
>
Maintaining a debian system is much easier than redhat, and that is why
you would be thankful. You already state that the DB engine is ported
to linux, so it should work on debian without modification.
> 10. It did not seem to make sense to ask more specific questions. What
> I am looking for is some Debian geeks that are willing to make this
> thing work. If then they have questions those geeks can pose more
> intelligent questions than I can.
>
What exactly do you want the debian geeks to help you with? How will
you be participating? What, besides more users from your products will
we recieve out of this participation?
> 11. We will use proprietary pieces to make an Open Source MD-Linux
> product that meets the requirement of the Debian license - or we will
> not do it at all.
>
What parts would be closed and open?
> 12. Can't be an add-on package because that would not be progress. As
> I stated above, Linux ports for the same database exist already and
> those applications work fine for most people. The problem is that they
> rely on win32 front-ends to make them salable. I want applications that
> are 100% pure Linux - no BG3 stuff.
>
What do you want to change on debian? Why couldn't the system be
configured to use xdm for graphical login, and automatically startup
your front end?
How does the current debian setup hinder your goal?
> 13. MD-Linux Scientific is for all practical purposes an R&D
> organization. People that will take MD-Linux and sell their
> applications on top of it can pick a more suitable name.
>
Will this be the open source part? How does this fit into the above?
> 14. If you are not part of the Debian team, what are you part of. How
> did you get this post?
>
I'm just your typical system administrator. I got your message because
you sent it to the powerpc list. I am not representing debian in any
way, but I am a debian user.
Has anyone else responded to your message?
> 15. Your comments are appreciated because they allow me to hone down to
> the essentials. Please keep them coming.
>
> Henry
>
Maybe I can help you in some way.
> , advantage of using KDE
Did your message get cut off?
Reply to: