×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Computer Associates Sells Ingres DB Tech

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the mergers-and-aquisitions dept.

Databases 78

Christopher B. Brown writes to tell us Network World is reporting that Computer Associates is selling their Ingres database technology to a private equity firm called Garnett & Helfrich Capital. From the article: "CA released Ingres last year as an open source project, reviving interest in the dormant software. Still, databases have never been a core part of CA's portfolio. CA CEO John Swainson cast the Ingres sale as part of CA's larger effort to streamline the vast collection of applications it amassed through a decade of heavy acquisitions in the 1990s. Ingres came to CA through its 1994 buyout of ASK/Ingres"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

78 comments

Ah, the tale of many an application... (5, Funny)

penguin_asylum (822967) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975889)

First, it's considered interesting. It gradually reduces in attention given to it, until... They release the source code! Revel ye cupids, for the code hath been releas-ed! Next day, no one's heard of it again...

Re:Ah, the tale of many an application... (4, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975996)

Could it be that the app was only interesting because of ignorance, both of the quality of the code and of the business value of the app? First the biz value is revealed to be less, which is what causes the release of the source code. Interest declines in the biz value, but possibly rises on the value of the code itself. But then inspection of the code shows its quality to be low, and nothing stops the decline of interest. The secrecy that propped up the app value before is gone, and its true, low value is now clear. It makes more sense when the cause and effect are considered in the proper order.

Re:Ah, the tale of many an application... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976835)

And people wonder why MS don't release their source code...

Code quality low!? (1)

joshsnow (551754) | more than 8 years ago | (#13978699)

But then inspection of the code shows its quality to be low

Code quality low?? Are you kidding?

Ingres was right up there with Oracle (and Informix and Sybase) ten years ago. The company who owned it, ASK group, went bust and CA pick up Ingres. As was usual when CA picked up a product, all the Ingres customers sought alternatives - usually Oracle or Informix.

Ingres has fallen this low due to soley to CAs Management(mismanagement?) of the product. Don't know what the current licence is like, but the other open source DBMS's could benefit from the Ingres codebase.

(Of course, an insanely great product doesn't necessarily mean a good quality codebase,but given what it was/is, the code had to be high quality otherwise ASK and CA wouldn't have been able to maintain it)

Re:Code quality low!? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13978840)

I was speaking from general principles of the way source is released. Neither you nor I has looked at the published Ingres code. But I see no reason to believe it's any different from any other code that fits the model I described. And your own comments on CA's mismanagement give good reason to believe that any quality inherent 10 years ago has been trampled to death by CA in the interim. ASK and CA failures to maintain the code are both good reasons for them to release it rather than maintain it themselves, as well as likely again on general principles. "10 years ago" is a joke, right?

the fp blues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13977155)

you pounced on your opportunity. you made it, you're +5. but you still lost karma from the event.
lol, my good friend. lol.

Re:the fp blues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13977761)

Guess it just sucks to be me then :P (either funny should count towards karma, or over/underrated on 'funny' posts shouldn't count either)

Re:the fp blues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980693)

or all first posts should make you lose karma.

I think it's pretty safe to say... (3, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975933)

That these acquisitions of modular lightweight technologies appear to be part of a larger dynamic approach to enterprise-class offerings. I can't imagine it stops with an RDBMS and network clients -- I wonder if there are any underappreciated server hardware platforms that they've got their eyes on.

Re:I think it's pretty safe to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976097)

Looks like the mission statement generator is working overtime! :D :D

Re:I think it's pretty safe to say... (0, Troll)

cluckshot (658931) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976223)

The stockholders in CA probably should be concerned. The management is probably using this private firm purchace to shed money into their own pockets while starving the stockholders. Well that's what this sort of even usually is so it shouldn't surprise anyone if it happens this time. Who knows? Sure enough we are not going to get a list of the owners/managers of the private firm.

Re:I think it's pretty safe to say... (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13977914)

Not only that, but there's synergistic potential to leverage the product into a monetizing opportunity.

Crooks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13975956)

CA is a bunch of crooks. Ingres is a joke.

sad attempt... (1)

Mister White (892068) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975961)

Is this just an attempt to make a name in the OS community? Good luck, using your 10 year old database technology...We've got much better tools available to us open source than 'ingres'.

Re:sad attempt... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976011)

Yeah MySQL can kick Ingres's ass from here to next week!!! Yet another example of how open-source developers can compete with the so-called 'enterprise class' software corporations on their own terms.

Re:sad attempt... (1)

kpharmer (452893) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976473)

> Yeah MySQL can kick Ingres's ass from here to next week!!! Yet another example of how open-source developers can compete with the
> so-called 'enterprise class' software corporations on their own terms.

Laf, nobody calls Engris "Enterprise-class" except for CA. The last year it was competitive was probably something like 1988. So, mysql can compete with 20 year old technology? Good job, especially now that it has taken how long? Seven years to pick up views?

Please, you might be better off pointing to a more mature and less buggy product than mysql for an example of ass-kicking competance.

Re:sad attempt... (1)

joshsnow (551754) | more than 8 years ago | (#13978731)

Inbgres was "competitive" right through the 90's to the early part of this decade. That's competitive with Oracle, Sybase and Informix. That means it's in a completely different class to MYSQL and Postgres.

Re:sad attempt... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976050)

You have no tools available in the Open Source market that compare with Ingres. If you think otherwise you are deluding yourself.

Ingres is an RDBMS used by large organisations and small, and has a very good technical support system behind it with actual people you can talk to - some even local.

Try that with MySQL, Postgres, etc - the only way you can get equivalent support for them is if you live in the same city as the developers. Computer Associates have offices with support people around the world.

Re:sad attempt... (1)

njcoder (657816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976369)

"Computer Associates have offices with support people around the world."

Yeah, Garnett & Helfrich Capital probably has highly trained technical staff throughout the world too ready to support the Ingress cash cow?!?!?!?!

Re:sad attempt... (2, Insightful)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976465)

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? Are all CA employees supposedly wizards with Ingres that can solve any problem at a moment's notice?

Many companies around the world provide very high quality support for PostgreSQL. To say that support for Ingres is better you're going to need to provide some evidence.

Re:sad attempt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976174)

Just because technology is old, does not make it bad. Especially when dealing with databases, the fact that the database is still around 20+ years after it was first created is a testament to the underlying stability of the original application.

Re:sad attempt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13980261)

or a testament to people who knew how to plug the leaks and keep it together with duct tape. You really don't know.

Re:sad attempt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976998)

There aren't any better Open Source RDBMSs than Ingres.

Why bother? (4, Insightful)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975976)

I don't get it. Since PostgreSQl is the successor to Ingres and is properly funded by DARPA - why would anyone bother with the older version? It feels like Linus making a big whoopdedoo about a release of kernel version 1.0 under a BSD license...

Re:Why bother? (2, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976032)

Indeed. It's not like we don't have SQL Databases pouring out of our ears. Today you can chose from PostGreSQL, MySQL, McKoi, Firebird, Derby, HSQL, Daffodil One$DB, SAP DB (the less said about that twisted codebase, the better), and a metric kilotonne more that I haven't even mentioned. What do we need *another* DB for, especially when it's out of date?

I'm far more pleased with the focus on Java databases like Derby and HSQL, plus the work going into XML Databases like Apache Xindice. All that work is extremely useful for portable applications, and has far more uses than Yet Another Crufty Codebase (TM).

Re:Why bother? (1, Troll)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976179)

My guess is that it is a tax scam. CA can now claim it as a charitable donation and probably won't have to pay any corporate tax for the next ten years.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976037)

You got teh facts wrong:
PSQL is not Ingres' successor - it might be its ancestor though.

Re:Why bother? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976065)

PostgreSQL is not the successor to Ingres, it is a branch of the source code from the early eighties. The commercial Ingres product was maintained and improved by a large team of full time engineers for 20+ years since the branch. It is arguable the superior branch.

Re:PostgreSQL Lineage (5, Informative)

Wugger (17867) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976347)

The lineage of PostgreSQL and Ingres is pretty clear [postgresql.org]. They are descendents of separate research projects of Prof. Michael Stonebreaker at UC Berkeley. Ingres descends from the an earlier project, which was a proving ground for pure relational technology.

PostgreSQL (note the play on words, "post" gres comes after "in" gres) descends from the follow-up project which extended relational concepts into an early "object-relational" system. Stonebreaker lays out his goals for the Postgres project in this 1986 paper [psu.edu].

So, Ingres is based on an older design that PostgreSQL. It has also spent 20 years in the corporate world being changed, upgraded, and improved, so evaluating it based on its lineage is like evaluating Oracle 10g based on your knowledge of Oracle 1.0. Interesting historical note: one of Oracle's first substantial competitors (and an early market leader) was a company called "Relational Technologies" that sold a cutting edge relational database named... Ingres.

Re:PostgreSQL Lineage (1)

kschendel (644489) | more than 8 years ago | (#13977695)

Ingres was totally rewritten in the late 80's and early 90's. Not "improved", rewritten completely. There is essentially no similarity left between the Ingres and PostgreSQL code lines, as anyone who could be bothered to look would tell you. Nor is there any similarity worth mentioning between Ingres today and the Ingres of the early research projects, or indeed the Ingres that RTI sold.

Re:PostgreSQL Lineage (1)

dbrower (114953) | more than 8 years ago | (#13978415)

Nor is there any similarity worth mentioning between Ingres today and the Ingres of the early research projects, or indeed the Ingres that RTI sold.
Um, wrong. When I looked at the released code last year, it looked amazingly familiar.

-dB, RTI/Ingres/Ask '84-'94.

Re:PostgreSQL Lineage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13989064)

Fancy coming back to Ingres Dave? A lot of your high ranking Oracle co-workers have... ;-p

We'd make you feel most comfortable! :-)

Re:PostgreSQL Lineage (1)

persicom (136940) | more than 8 years ago | (#13994682)

I happened to use Ingres in my first job in 1987 at Citibank. I remember a few "nice" things about the package:

1) We were running on VAX4000 machines that had those multi-platter disk packs the size of a cake carrier that went in a reader the size of a dishwasher. By keeping the system tables on fixed disk and data tables on the removable, we could "swap" databases just by swapping the packs.

2) We used QUEL, relational calculus. Much more powerful and simpler than SQL. I've forgotten most of the details, but I do remember being able to put sums and max calls in the select without having to jump through group by and having by and subquery hoops to do it.

My next job used SQL and I remember struggling for quite a while, getting the hang of relational algebra.

Marketing muscle beats techical innovation again. Sigh.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Herbmaster (1486) | more than 8 years ago | (#13978492)

PostgreSQL is not the successor to Ingres, it is a branch of the source code from the early eighties. The commercial Ingres product was maintained and improved by a large team of full time engineers for 20+ years since the branch. It is arguable the superior branch.

This is all true. Now, I invite anybody with half a brain to argue that it actually is the superior branch.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13979744)

Posting anonymously because the company I work for has a huge Ingres investment.

You are right that it is arguable. However, I have Ingres databases that are 50GB+ running mission critical applications with hundreds of concurrent users. This is obviously not a comment on the quality of the source code, but demonstrates that as an RDBMS, Ingres (certainly in the R3.0 product) is a very stable, very scalable - and Open Source - product.

The general assumption on sites such as Slashdot is that Postgres is the superior product, but I've yet to see figures supporting either argument. If you've not checked out R3 of Ingres, then I'd suggest a trip to the Ingres Open Source [ca.com] page, if only to have a look at the documentation. It's a great product and it's a real shame that it's being ignored by so many.

Compatibility. (2, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976149)

Compatibility.

Many large corporations have massive amounts of data stored in system backed by Ingres databases. This is often very important data, and cannot be corrupted.

While a system like PostgreSQL is often more than capable, in a technical sense, it may not offer the 100% compatibility that is needed by serious users. Thus it is often not an option.

Re:Why bother? (3, Insightful)

buckhead_buddy (186384) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976194)

HermanAB wrote:
Since PostgreSQl is the successor to Ingres and is properly funded by DARPA - why would anyone bother with the older version?
Please note that this company is not specifically a technology company; their focus seems to be on investing. My guess is that they're going after the Intellectual Property and need the ownership of the proprietary code to set up a basis for sales, licensing, or litigation.

Perhaps they have other interests. Though they don't appear to be, they might be the Investor equivalent of Sanford and Son and see the Ingres code as having future value even if it isn't developed further. I don't see the appeal, but someone surely saw something in it. Their strategy may not be clear, but they certainly didn't buy it out of nostalgia.

Re:Why bother? (1)

photon317 (208409) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976279)


Perhaps they saw that PostgreSQL was on the rise, and were hoping to prep themselves to pull a SCO and start trying to charge every company that uses PostgreSQL because it somehow violated some old copyright or patent on their recently acquired Ingres (and eventually figured out they couldn't do so, so now they're giving up on it). It isn't even remotely sane, and they'd have no case, but that didn't stop SCO from trying either.

Re:Why bother? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976386)

prep themselves to pull a SCO and start trying to charge every company...

CA has already 'been there, done that' and I figure the metaphorical moose has been milked like the one in the 'Ernie'/'Piranha Club' comic strip moose-milking contest storyline of many years ago (if you didn't see the comic, the moose looked horribly emaciated and in shock from the experience. Imagine Bill The Cat as a moose).

CA's early 1990's management ran a policy of buying out software companies and 'maximizing' license renewal revenue from the legacy apps like Ask and Ingres. I was managing a MicroVAX running a 2-user Ingres legacy database around that time and, while I don't remember the exact renewal cost, I do remember nearly fainting from its magnitude, well above 10 times the prior year. We didn't renew and, if memory serves, the app was retired in favor of a small shell script or some such thing.

I wonder if anybody running Ingres during that period is still running it (and paying for support). More likely the Ingres base is now mostly those who picked it up under CA's more conciliatory management team.

Re:Why bother? (1)

kschendel (644489) | more than 8 years ago | (#13977946)

As it happens, many Ingres sites are long-termers. I don't deny that there were some crazy CA moves in the mid-90's, but it turned out that if you were large enough, or had a compliant salesman, you could beat down the fees to something reasonable.

Another possibility (1)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976431)

Open Source as a business model is looking like it could do something similar to the .Com era. Ingres has a reputation in Big Business that PostgreSQL and MySQL do not (fair or unfair). If (as is speculated) Open Source goes through a major boom, Ingres will be hot property with database developers and therefore potentially offer a good return on the investment.


(No, this company isn't likely to hold onto it. This looks like the sort of deal where they buy something that might be worth a lot more next week or next year, so they can sell it and make money. Simple speculation.)


Note that this theory ONLY holds up if the price was sufficiently low that if Open Source does have a boom, the investors will be able to make significantly more profit on it than they would have done speculating on, say, stocks or currency. So if it's a land-grab, they're expecting the value of Open Source software to at least double or triple in the next few years. Otherwise, the investment wouldn't be worth it.


(The value of Ingres is important in this - if it cost them $10, then a 100% profit margin won't be hard to achieve. The more they actually paid - never mind anything officially said - the more it will take to make the profit margins they'd have to be looking at.)


There is one other possibility, but it's a remote one. Instead of a boom, they're expecting a crash - particularly in the database market. They'll have IT guys and the Open Source mantra of being able to look at the code can be persuasive. They may be convinced that the database market is so glutted and so unsure of direction that it will have to collapse. If it does so, then the only support they'll have is whatever they give themselves anyway.


In this scenario, they're playing the role of survivalists - acquiring the technology they'll need to survive, expecting things to get nasty for everyone else (ie: everyone still on their feet playing the role of SCO). In this scenario, the only sure defence is to have something with no prior technology in it - and Ingres would meet that. This does seem unlikely, but I wouldn't rule it out without a lot more information.

Re:Why bother? (1)

kschendel (644489) | more than 8 years ago | (#13977980)

Just going after the IP? Nonsense. If you're going to do that, you buy the IP without any of the people. Ingres Corp is going to consist of essentially the entire complement of developers and support staff who worked on Ingres at CA. The new company IS a technology company.

As far as "why bother", I could argue why would anyone bother with PostgreSQL now that Ingres is available and open source. After all, Ingres is *already* an enterprise class DBMS that runs any number of very large, mission critical databases, and its codebase is just as new (or old) as PostgreSQL's. The argument in both directions is kind of silly because the two DBMS's aren't directly comparable. (But I understand it's way more fun to speculate without being bothered by any facts! and I certainly wouldn't expect a slashdotter to actually LOOK at the code bases before talking about them, goodness no precious.)

Re:Why bother? (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976291)

I was reading about the replication capabilities of ingres. It seems to extremely advanced, and certainly more advanced then anything firebird, mysql or postgres has. I don't know if the licences allow it but it sure would be nice to have that kind of replication facilities in postgres.

Target audience (2, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976365)

SQLite is good if you want an embeddable SQL engine, but it isn't exactly a heavy-duty workhorse. To serve dynamic content for a single-user website, where Big Iron Databases would look stupid and do nothing extra, this is exactly what you want.


If you want something that'll do a bit more, but retain a lot of the speed and also keep the footprint down, MySQL is probably the best bet. It has a lot of the functionality of the really large databases - perhaps rather more than is good for a lean, mean database machine - but still gives good balance between function and performance.


PostgreSQL is much more powerful than MySQL, but at the cost of being bigger and generally not as nimble. If you're dealing with mid-sized Enterprise-level databases, I frankly wouldn't care about per-transaction performance as much as I'd care about maintaining good performance for respectable databases for a few hundred simultaneous users. MySQL would be hammered long before PostgreSQL for this kind of work. For GIS stuff, where you've some fairly tricky topographical information to manipulate, you'll notice that PostgreSQL has a far bigger following.


This leaves Ingres, which has a reputation for being good for Big Corporate Data Warehousing. Data warehousing is a very different problem from regular relational database handling. The problem-space is typically orders of magnitude greater, the database generally isn't going to be normalized and the mappings are generally altered to be less I/O-bound - which usually means more work for the CPU.


The problem-spaces solved by these databases are all very very different. I would love to see a database that had pluggable components such that different components were optimized for different types of workload and that different functions could be loaded/unloaded as needed, so your footprint was always the lowest for what you were doing, not what the database was capable of.


The fact is, no such database is in wide use - assuming it exists at all.


And we're only talking about the SQL Relational model. The "pure" relational model (as discussed on Slashdot many times) is different again, as are the Object-Relational and the Object-Oriented models. Absolutely none of these could be used with Xanadu's ZigZag data structures (the relationships are essentially permutations and order-independent, whereas formal databases use relationships that are either one-way or follow a specific ordering). They generally don't distribute well, either, as data is bulkier than code, forcing you to load-balance rather than distribute logically.


(That last part can be solved for some cases - it is fairly common to have a mix of tightly-coupled and loosely-coupled data, so it is possible to split the problem-space in a way that keeps communications down and takes advantage of a parallel architecture. It just isn't easy.)


Ingres is important as a database, because PostgreSQL can't (yet) cut it in the Really Big Database World. As good as PostgreSQL is, I would not want to replace extremely large-scale Informix or DB/2 databases with it. Maybe someday, but not today. Ingres - I'd give it a maybe. It does have the reputation of being able to handle it.


The multitude of engines out there are also important, because there are many, many different problem-spaces out there and NONE of them - not one - is good at even a few, let alone many, and certainly not all. And there are many problem-spaces for which there are no databases at all. At least, none worth mentioning.


This is a fixable problem, but not until someone goes out there and fixes it. That isn't happening. So, until then, I'll use RRD, SQLite, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Ingres, Sleepycat DB4, ZopeDB, OpenLDAP, CUPS*, Shadow*, Postfix*, Reiser4*, ...


*These all have databases in them. The password file, the print spooler, all the fancy file-access features of Reiser4... And because they're all working in subtly different ways, you WILL have a database engine for each, until or unless someone produces a system that can do all of these as well as each of the specialized solutions.

Re:Target audience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13993454)

jd wrote The problem-spaces solved by these databases are all very very different. I would love to see a database that had pluggable components such that different components were optimized for different types of workload and that different functions could be loaded/unloaded as needed

Vendors such as IBM, Microsoft, Oracle and Sybase have taken a somewhat different approach to adapting their servers to the workload and the jobs at hand.

First, let's distinguish between software and the database it manages. The former is a database management system (DBMS) that isn't a single, monolithic program. If you install and run DB2, Oracle, Sybase, or Microsoft SQL Server, you'll see there is a division of labor. There isn't a single process, service or thread doing all of the work. There's are typically different daemons / services running for managing connections, for OLAP processing, for replication, etc. If you don't need a service, such as OLAP or replication, you don't start it.

You mentioned wanting to "see a database that had pluggable components". The industry has been there and done that -- for almost ten years. Using object-relational SQL products, we can install plug-ins in databases. It's the same concept as a browser plug-in.

Starting in the '90s, IBM, Informix, Oracle and Sybase released SQL servers that provide this capability. Besides containing tables and views, the database can contain stored procedures, triggers and Java classes. The DBMS invokes the embedded Java classes when executing SQL queries or stored procedures.

A Google search on "Java in the database" and "logic in the database" turned up these links:

"Java DB Synergy" http://www.firstsql.com/javadbsynergy.shtml/ [firstsql.com]
"Logic in the Database" http://www.sqlsummit.com/articles/LogicInTheDataba se.HTM [sqlsummit.com]
"Using Java in the Database" http://www.ianywhere.com/developer/product_manuals /sqlanywhere/0902/en/html/dbpgen9/00000063.htm/ [ianywhere.com]

Re:Why bother? (1)

passion (84900) | more than 8 years ago | (#13978115)

Why Bother?

Imagine for a moment, that you've been stuck maintaining an application which heavily relies upon Ingres. You've found bugs, you've desired features added, but you've gotten no love for a long time. Opening the source has got to be a god-send for these people. No longer do they get stiff-armed when they have access to the code themselves.

New owners beware... (0, Troll)

KLP-2002 (548875) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975979)

Ingress was a very good database, however (as anyone who knows about the DB) the new owners will have a major job transferring the existing users of the 3.4 BG license (subsection 8.9) over to the new build. It has a poison pill condition that prevents the previous users from compiling scripts with UTF-8 support which stops about 90% of Java frontends dead.

Coincidence? (2, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976006)

Coincidence that this happens the day MS finally releases their long delayed SQL Server 2005. Maybe they know something about the database market that has escaped the rest of us so far.

Re:Coincidence? (1)

medge_42 (173874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976824)

I was at a Ingres Users Group meeting when they announce the Open Source thing. CA repeatedly emphasized that they weren't competing against MySQL as MySQL didn't have stored procedures [mysql.com].

Re:Coincidence? (1)

InsaneCreator (209742) | more than 8 years ago | (#13977307)

Not only that, but a new version of PostgreSQL is also being released in about an hour. Get ready for a database news overdose. :)

Re:Coincidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13977571)

it was supposed to happen last week - not sure what the delays were but it happened yesterady instead.

Too little too late (1, Insightful)

Mensa Babe (675349) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976014)

It might have been a good idea in the bad old days [google.com] but today when we already have a stable, production ready, rock solid, ACID [wikipedia.org]-compliant open-source [wikipedia.org] relational [wikipedia.org] database management system of choice [google.com], Ingres will never truly succeed in "reviving interest in the dormant software". It's the same mistake that the record industry has made in the early nineties all over again. They missed the train. Sad but true.
                       

Re:Too little too late (1)

fatboyslack (634391) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976163)

I don't think that is a very good analogy at all. The music industry failed to recognise the change in it's own industry and is now playing catch up and attempting to control a tornado effectively; some archaic piece of who-cares software has now changed hands.

In fact.... what are you actually trying to say? Not to be too nasty (too late he thinks) but html links do not make a relevant post.

Re:Too little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976370)

Why did you link to a wikipedia article on relational algebra? That has very little to do directly with SQL. "SQL" doesn't even appear in the article!

Since you are a "Mensa" babe, I assume you care about thinking and speaking with clarity and correctness, especially in such a well-defined subject area (the relational model)...

Re:Too little too late (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 8 years ago | (#13977799)

Why indeed? In a world where there's mysql, mysql and postgressql and god knows what else corporate stuff the only reason I can see to keep Ingress alive is legacy support. Perhaps that's worth millions?

But...

A any mature technology that doesn't have an O'Reily book about it by now is a loser headed for extinction.

Postgres vs Ingres? (1)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976045)

Is there much, if anything, to gain by purchasing Ingres, when Postgresql is free under a non-restrictive license?

Re:Postgres vs Ingres? (1)

Kaemaril (266849) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976095)

Probably not. Let's hope they don't try to SCO Postgresql.

... yeah, no leg to stand on an' all that ... didn't stop SCO.

Sorry, feeling in a really cynical mood tonight :)

Re:Postgres vs Ingres? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976107)

1) You can purchase Ingres with commercial support - ie 'real' vendor based support.

2) While Ingres is not a GPL'd product, the licensing is still fair nd reasonable.

If you want a DBMS with a large multinational software company (think bigger than Microsoft) supporting it, and the idea of 'freeware' scares your boss - look at Ingres.

You can have your organisation using the commercially licensed and supported release of Ingres R3 for production work, while the non-production boxes can run the compatible Open Source version without cost or fear of audit.

You can use it without fear of the Oracle style power based licenses.

It's a proper commercial RDBMS at open-source prices

Re:Postgres vs Ingres? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976113)

Because Ingres has many paying customers in fortune 500 companies, who have mission critical software running on Ingres and those people are willing to pay more for better support. Postgres is just a branch of Ingres from the early 80s, at this point the two systems have almost nothing in common.

Re:Postgres vs Ingres? (1)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976207)

Well damn, they should have the SQL standard in common, right?

Re:Postgres vs Ingres? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976306)

hey should have the SQL standard in common, right?

Chuckle, not if you use the QUEL engine that is still inside of Ingres. :-) (for someone with legacy QUEL code that works that's a "feature". )

Re:Postgres vs Ingres? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976482)

That's about all they have in common. Postgres' hash join engine is crap, the IO layer is even worse (that's why Netezza had to rip it out and code it in a FPGA, and Bizgres tried to modify it too), and since it isn't multithreaded, its a pig on performance and resources. Yep, that sounds world-class to me.

But, you're right the code is nice to read compared to Ingres. Good thing too since you will have to write in a lot just to make it perform half as fast as Ingres. Sweet!

ASK as in Sandra Koenig? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976265)

What ever happened to that chick?

Er, lady?

Yo dudes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976272)

just chillin'. What the fuck is up?

Re:Yo dudes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976325)

Same old shit, man. My fucking Ingres database is busted again. Y'all think someone can help fix my pickup? Oh hell, those Japanese thingamajigs. Can't trust 'em for shit.

Re:Yo dudes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13976654)

Grandpa, is that you? Didn't I tell you to quit trolling Slashdot?

Sun Blog Talk (1)

njcoder (657816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13976344)

Slightly tangential observation but a few months ago when there was talk about a Sun DB there were some Sun bloggers talking about acquiring Ingres. Then recently there was the story [slashdot.org] about Sun looking at PostgreSQL. This anouncement from CA makes it seem like they were probably shopping it around to people around the time Sun was talking about a Sun DB and they might have been considering it since Sun didn't buy it makes it seem that we can expect them to really get behind pgsql.

How many posters have actually used Ingres ? (3, Informative)

RobWalker (623706) | more than 8 years ago | (#13977593)

I can tell you, I've used both Ingres and many other database (including MS-SQL, MySQL, DB2, etc. etc.).

Despite it being considered "old" it, Ingres is a fast and stable database - certain comparable and up to the performance levels and features of many current databases, MS-SQL and MySQL included.

And several cite how much better MySQL is an open source database - to which I'd say:

- read the Ingres and MySQL licenses and tell me which is more open source, and less restrictive? To my eye (and IANAL) the Ingres one poses fewer constraints on use of Ingres as an open source product within commercial products

- ask one of the many big Sun sites who still run very large, very stable applications on Ingres whether they'd like to swap for MySQL?

I have no axe to grind here, but Ingres is a decent database and a proper open source contribution. Just because it has CA's name associated with it, doesn't make it bad

Re:How many posters have actually used Ingres ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13978190)

I would have to agree that Ingres is a quality database product, certainly on par (postgresql, firebird) or ahead of (my$ql) other open source databases, but it's problem lies somewhere between licensing and ownership. CA made big headlines claiming it was committed to Ingres and open source, and yet a year later they are selling it off? And even if it's license is better than my$ql's license (it's not better than postgresql's license) who knows how long that license will remain in effect given the revoling door of corporate ownership that surrounds the code? This new company could cease development of the open source version of Ingres and given it's current state I don't think a forked version is viable. I'm not trying to spread FUD here, but part of determining a technology strategy is taking into account exposure to risk; with Ingres it is very high and could end up biting you if your not careful. (Something the my$ql folks are currently learning about the hard way)

Re:How many posters have actually used Ingres ? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13978417)

As I work for CA, let me try to shed some light here. By spinning it off we can have a company who can dedicate the $$$ needed to further evolve the product in the Open Source community, and at the same time, provide support for the product. You'll note that CA still has a stake in the product, and it isn't going away. It also isn't going back to a close-source model. What it is doing is putting the focus of an organiation completely on Ingres, where we could not do that. This is good for Ingres, and good for the Open Source community.

Where does Open-Road fit into this I wonder? (1)

honest_aly (877511) | more than 8 years ago | (#13977632)

Openroad being the OO Programming language that seems heavily intertwined with Ingres. Used by at least one mid-range market ERP system (Adage) http://www.infor.com/ [infor.com] in the process chemical industry. I was always under the impression that Ingres/Open road (especially since OR 4) were one in the same.

speaking of crufty old software (1)

drwho (4190) | more than 8 years ago | (#13984303)

Does anyone remember the name of the DB software that BBN (Bolt Beranek Newman) produced? An old friend of mine was one of the last people in the world that used it.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...