Slashdot Mirror
Trail of Tears: MySQL, ODBC, & OpenOffice 1.0
Joe Barr writes "
I found a wonderful "how-to" piece called "OpenOffice.org 1.0, ODBC and MySQL," by John McCreesh. In the introduction, McCreesh writes about OpenOffice.org 1.0's "best kept secret" -- that secret being the fact that hidden away inside, completely unknown to most OpenOffice users, is a user-friendly front end for databases that is "a Microsoft Access (and more) equivalent." That may be so, but there is a very good reason why it's a secret: it's too damn hard getting OpenOffice and ODBC wired up correctly."
The "journalist" who wrote the article said his friend was having a hard time getting MySQL, OpenOffice and Linux (Suse) to work. He then lists that his friend can 1) network computers 2) make anything work in DOS and Windows and 3) simply installed the RPMs.
I'm not sure what the hell qualifies this guy to be able to do much of anything in Linux much less tie MySQL to OO via ODBC.
Honestly, I'm no monster of political correctness (lifelong Republican, in fact) but "Trail of Tears" over configuring MySQL? Come on, folks.
Two points:
... how leet should Linux users be before they can install an MS Access equivalent? On Windows, you can do it with a few clicks. It sounds like you want the Linux equivalent to come with a 10-page exam.
1: The writer of the piece, talking about his install troubles, is a Linuxworld columnist. Now, this may not give them kernel-developer-like skills, but...
2:
-- Yoz
Eh. On the one hand, yes, political correctness sucks.
On the other hand, comparing the configuration problems inherent to OpenOffice with the Trail of Tears is pretty obnoxious. I mean, what next, "Linux Networking: 9/11 All Over Again"?
I really don't think this is a case of being overly politically correct. It's more that the author of the article used an entirely inappropriate title, given the subject. Comparing computer configuration problems with the death of thousands is, well, shitty.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
Well, if we titled the story "Pogrom" or "Death march" do you think it would piss anyone off?
(1) it's not nice to offend people
How about this nice little thing i like to call 'getting over it.' People are WAY too easily offended nowadays. I'm going to speak my mind, and if that offends you, well i'm sorry but thats your problem, not mine. the world is not a nice place.
>Are there seriously still people who don't have
>MS Office?
There are projects for which the price of MS Windows and MS Office will preclude the project being done. Such things may not matter to you, since you obviously either have working capital or are willing to compromise your ethics. What if your entire expected revenue was less than the price of that software, but the system you want to develop has value other than cash value? Because of the price of Office, you're suggesting that such a project should not even be done.
That's not your call. It's okay that there are alternatives, and that people choose to use them!
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
It's just like Access? So, it's a form builder and a report generator, with full support for embedding standard platform components, including and compliant script engines? Just like Access does?
So, now I can script Open Office applications using Perl, Python, VBScript, JavaScript, and a slew of of less popular languages, just like Access? And I can bring in components built in any of the standard platform development environment, just like Access can use ActiveX controls?
That's incredibly cool. I'm looking forward to trying that.
Or, do you mean it's another crappy, half assed front end that looks superficially similar to Access to someone who's never bothered to use it?
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
This certainly isn't the first or last attempt to wrap a user friendly UI on top of MySQL, but I think attempts to push MySQL + a nice GUI as an Access killer are mistaken.
My own experience with Access is fairly limited, but from what work I have done with Access, it seems that the biggest benefit is entirely ignored by this and other products like The Kompany's Data Architect. Access lets you take everything (data, reports, forms, queries, etc) and shove it all into a single portable file. Burning a copy to CD-R or Floppy is a snap, and it seems to be much easier for the clueless to wrap their heads around the idea of a database + reports + forms as a single file. I tried to sell a non-profit organization on the idea of MySQL + custom interfaces as a replacement to their quirky Access databases and they were completely unplussed by the idea.
It seems like such a simple idea to combine perl or Python forms, HTML, XML or PDF reports, and Data into a single gzipped file (maybee even a file that runs on it's own without any third party software other than a perl or python interpriter.) I don't get why so much effort seems to be directed at making MySQL user friendly instead. MySQL seems like complete overkill as an Access replacement. GNutrition is a good example of this problem.. Why in the world do you need a MySQL server for something so simple?
It's a poor use of language. "Trail of Tears" has a very specific meaning which is way beyond the sentiment they're trying to convey (which any U.S.-ian should know but probably doesn't since we're so ignorant of history). Exaggeration is fine but this is taking it to an extreme. You might as well go all the way and call the article "MySQL, ODBC, & OpenOffice 1.0, a Configruation Holocaust." Actually that might not be as bad because "Holocaust" is qualified with an adjective which indicates its scope. No, it still sucks.
Powerful words should be used carefully, otherwise their glib use leaves our language impoverished and trivialized.
One owes respect to the living. To the dead one owes only truth.
Political Correctness is a problem - sometimes. But in this case, it is at a level higher than PC. Perhaps because we never again want to see another people go through what our people have been through.
To a Native American like myself, to compare a great human tradgedy to your problems with an incomplete piece software is insulting. It trivializes the death of much of my people and the death of our entire way of life and culture. It's just a bad analogy.
C is a tool. The person programming the bomber is a toolmaker. The pilot is alas a soldier following orders, the orders come from a government, and that government exists at the privelidge of the people it serves.
-- $G
I'm not sure it's fair to query MySQL ABs role in this - did you try accessing Postgres, Interbase, SAPDB, Sybase, MSSQL, Oracle... through OO with unixODBC? Did they work?
Whilst unixODBC sort of works, I've never had much confidence in it - strikes me as being very much the last resort when every other alternative has been tried. In your favour, the MySQL ODBC driver isn't particularly robust - seems to need a number of workarounds to get reliable access from Access (pardon the pun).
I'd also query the quality and reliability of OOs external database support - I've consistently failed to get any database access via JDBC - works fine from my own Java code but never via OO. The documentation was also non-existent last time I looked.
> that secret being the fact that hidden away inside,
> completely unknown to most OpenOffice users, is a
> user-friendly front end for databases
User-friendly? McCreesh was definitely smoking something if he wrote that
Yes, most of the author's problems were files being in different locations. The clash between /usr/lib/ and /usr/local/lib/ wouldn't happen under any packaging system (since /usr/local/ is not touched by the package manager), and the difference in the location of the socket is something the vendor ought to have fixed, by shipping packages that agree on the location.
It isn't clear from the article where he got the RPMs from. If they were from a mixture of different places, it's not that surprising that there were difficulties. Maybe the answer is for the package builders to talk to each other a bit more.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
it's important to understand that offense is in the eye of the offended, not the offender.
NO NO NO!! Sorry to come off so strongly, but this is completely and TOTALLY wrong.
You cannot define offense by who is offended, because you can ALWAYS find someone who is offended by ANYTHING.
The rational point of view is looking at the intent of what someone is saying. I'm particularly reminded of someone who was fired for using the word "niggardly" in a staff meeting! A black person was offended, even though the word has absolutely nothing to do with the word "nigger", and the person was forced to resign. Is this really the world you want where the idiots who get offended decide who gets lynched (word used intentionally)?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
So? That doesn't mean they're not really offended. But let's face it, some offenses are worse than others. You want to make it sound like words are completely neutral, but they're not.
Words ARE completely neutral, but intent is not. For example, black people use the word "nigger" between themselves all the time without giving offense. It's the context and intent that gives offense.
But intent is not always conscious, and in fact not always relevant.
But it's *exactly* relevent. The key point that I think you're missing is that being offended is entirely voluntary. Take gay jokes -- some gay people will be offended, and others won't. That means that the people being offended chose to be offended.
It simply is not and should not be my concern whether someone has some sort of mental problems that will misinterpret my intentions. Now, if someone is close to me and I know they are particularly sensitive to something, then I may out of politeness decide to avoid those terms. But it is absolutely not my responsibility to watch my language on the off-chance that someone might choose -- possibly intentionally -- to misinterpret me.
It's an archaic word and is obviously ripe for misinterpretation.
Perhaps, but doesn't it baldly demonstrate that certain people are LOOKING to be offended? Once the word is explained, then why would there be any further controversy?
And where do I stop? Do I not use the word "dastardly" around someone born out of wedlock because it sounds like "bastardly"? Do I never use the word "God" because it might offend an atheist? Do I not mention that I bought some "spic-and-span" around Italian people? And let's not even get into the absolute stupidity of terms like "differently abled" rather than handicapped (and yes, I use the latter word proudly).
The insanity will never stop, and I refuse to be held hostage to people who will take offense at anything I say. I say again, the ONLY measure that has to matter is intent.
I were an intelligent racist (how I wish that were a simple oxymoron), I would realize that I could say a lot of the things I mean without actually saying them.
Exactly. It's the intent that matters. People generally know when someone is trying to insult them. The words are irrelevent. In fact, just a look can insult someone. It's the intent of the look that counts.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
it's offensive because the two things are of totally different proportion. (Frankly, calling Bill Gates a Nazi is the same way.) This article's title is like naming your Cisco Router "The Auswitch" because you don't dig the restrictive interface; or equating the VCR with the Boston Strangler.
The Cherokee Nation had a bicameral legislature, newspapers, and cities. This was a full nation that Andrew Jackson forcibly expelled to Oklahoma. Comparing this ethnic cleansing to one's ODBC setup bugaboos is shit-headed.
Hey, I'm not saying whoever wrote this shouldn't be allowed to say it. But neither should that person be kept from derision, like a darling little prince. Whoever thought up the title of this article is a cockmaster. Deal with it.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
*SNIP*
It isn't clear from the article where he got the RPMs from. If they were from a mixture of different places, it's not that surprising that there were difficulties. Maybe the answer is for the package builders to talk to each other a bit more.
This is why Microsoft implimented a registry. Now the registry is badly implimented and has some bad drawbacks (like the fact that it is used for EVERYTHING and thus WAY OVERBLOATED) but a unified configuration database (that just said where a package is located and where its "main" configuration file/s were located) would solve these problems and the RPM packagers would not have to care about that kind of stuff.
I miss the Karma Whores.