Assuming that MySQL comes up with a substitute for Innodb (no attractive options yet), simplifies their licensing, and resolves the most significant existing issues.
I'm also you don't like the licensing, but I'm not going to argue philosophy when I have the practical experience of NEVER coming up against it, over the years. I use it as a tool, not as something to repackage and resell.
Please expand on why Innodb is a valid reason to reject MySQL or even make it unattractive.
P.S. For websites, MySQL still seems like a good choice. MySpace uses MySQL. I wonder what they would have to say?
I've never found any DB abstraction that was better than my homebrew.// Put in global include or instantiate as needed $MySQL = new mysql_connect();// optional: user,pass,server,db params
$query = "select foo from bar"; $MySQL->query($query);// I intuitively "see" the difference between a method and var when reading code while($MySQL->next()){
$row = $MySQL->get_row(); } --- Everything MySQL can tell me, the object knows or can figure out from the query itself...yes I substr out the type of query to determine method context
I love examining implementations of SQL absractions. I'm a geek like that.
I am of the view that the founders were not as bright as they are often touted. I agree it makes more sense that the 9th should be interpreted broadly (your view, as if we own these views), meaning I agree with you. Hamilton always understood people better than Jackson. Does it matter? No. Too many loopholes. No government can function under a broad interpretation. What was that whole civil war about anyway? Oh yeah, we switched interpretation...
/If narrow got us to free slaves, it had to happen ASAP.//Be interesting to see if narrow's what gets America in the end, was it worth it? yes.
If rights are are not explicitly enumerated within the constitution, they are not retained. Telephone, etc.
If the US Constitution was not to be interpreted in such a way, but to strictly follow the language of the 9th Amendment, why would it ever again, contain language with an intent other than to define/restrict rights. Rights would fall within an "infinitely broad" scope.
i.e. Does the Constitution say I don't have a right to ignore the 6th Amendment? Nope. K, then it falls under the 9th Amendment that I can choose to ignore it.
I have a passing interest in Ruby, but haven't seen nor heard of anything that would lead me to believe that Ruby is signifigantly better than PHP. The RoR video I watched, twice, led me to believe that LAMPoR would probably be a good product on the market. Often you mention serious security issues, regarding PHP which you do not identify, specifically. Furthermore, you profess that PHP is "severely flawed". That catches my attention.
I recognize your name from a number of insightful posts, so I ended up browsing the last couple postings you have committed to history (not a paying/. acct, I can only see the last 24). I quickly realized I cannot possibly divine your views without this gaudy request. To be honest, I have been a PHP developer for 7 years. I am very interested in hearing from you further on this topic, if you could be more informative. I have no particular allegiance to PHP, as I use ASP/ColdFusion/Java daily. I do admit I haven't given much credit to Ruby as "cutting edge", in web development.
I apologize that I cannot send you a private message CyricZ. By posting I concede I am fanning the flames of those who are interested in making noise, and chance being ignored. Feel free to email me at jack9 at teacher com (throwaway addy)
It's apparently not obvious, because I and many other people wildly disagree with you.
In a purely economical sense, it's not worth it, on it's face. The value:cost ratio of adding 3 books of appendices to published encyclopedia volumes is unrealistic. Some people probably wildly (meaning fanatically?) disagree with many things that capitalism has borne out. The reality of the market is independent of the philosophical nature of truth, in that respect. Being able to request, receive, and understand the informational response, regarding any source, adequately fulfills the need to have it. I believe traceability is necessary, as facts and source are inexorably linked.
What does this have to do with information value? Nothing. You revalue information based on personal opinion on how it serves you on a case-by-case basis. Knowing how the white supremists view the Holocaust is just as valuable as knowing how it was recorded by the rest of the world. It does devalue the collection to have to question and investigate each individual sentence for validity based on your own criteria...oh wait I'm talking about Wikipedia again (the idea, not current implementation), while a single organization creating a monolithic collection would hopefully put a uniform bent to each sentence.
The "straw man" accusation was targeted at the post above it, not the wikipedia, so the anonymity of the Wikipedia community has no bearing on the point.
I think you have missed the point.
And even if it did, print encyclopedias do not provide their readers with information on the authorship of individual articles
I think it's obvious that it's not worth the paper. I submit that you have never even attempted to ask for authorship information from an encyclopedia. I had a physics science project I failed in GRADE SCHOOL. This was primarily due to a failure to make the correct distinction between "potential" and "kinetic" energy. I was able to bring out the physical source. The project was given a revised grade after the instructor contacted the publisher who admitted it was a known misprint.
I think you can safely imagine that medical encyclopedias are fairly well documented, 30 years later (today). After 2 open heart surgeries and countless other illnesses encountered, I know so. My current views are based on my logical assumptions and experiences. YMMV.
In fact, Wikipedia actually provides more (and more accessible) information on the revision history and editorial decisions leading to the present state of an article than any print encyclopedia I've ever heard of.
I believe this is because, this rev. info is just as unreliable (in terms of determining accuracy or good judgement in deciding relevant content) as any single article currently displayed in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is now the only accurate word to describe this type of unwitting and part-time collaboration. An encyclopedia, it is not.
Wikipedia may not provide a strong or prominent enough disclaimer to suit you, but the obvious question would be: what does? TV news? The New York Times? Can you name a single "authoritative" source of information that either 1) Prominently disclaims their status as authoritative or 2) provides some substantive guarantee of the accuracy of the information?
US media has been losing much of it's clout due to corrupting and scandal involving deliberate inaccuracy. Short answer, the news doesn't state the truth, but what their agents hear or see or what agenda they wish to promote. Attempts at stating facts of discovery (like the falsified Bush military records) have continued to be a sore spot, even with accountability.
Given the rate of decline in newspaper subscriptions in metropolitan areas, look for it on your handheld in the next 10 years. It will look a lot like network news looks. Newspapers can be queried for sources in most cases. The sources are often quoted.
Finally, are there sources of information that state they are authoritative, with a guarantee of accuracy? Why yes there is. Unfortunately, there are none that guarantee accuracy AND cover anything more than a very specific topic. (statistics on Federal wage rates, ballots, Grants, operating tolerances of a 1947 Chevy engine mount, etc.) I believe what you intended to ask was, "Is there a self-proclaimed authoritative source of general information?" Nope. You will find all publications (physical and virtual) cleverly have been reworded since, I presume the 1980's, to reflect the nebulous nature of "truth". Even Britannica now claims to be a "standard for reference" rather than a source of facts.
/Fark style PS slashes on slashdot. I love irony.
//Not promoting an agenda
///Sorry about first bullet, GP was reponse to a flame to a summary, not worth it
////I will consider your responses if you like the topics, I love being taught more than learning
If yur looking to whip up a quick application and have any idea as to how Java or VB works (even driven programming), you might as well d/l the free trial RealBasic suite and use that. Yes, you need to purchase a license to instantiate a DB connection, but skip VB for when you want cross platform and dont want to insist on a JRE to run your program./didnt read article//abandoned VB at v6///RB is not 100% stable to develop on windows, but good on linux/mac
The key phrase is "Some MUDs have already done this." Of course some (small) MU*'s can do dynamic content. You can characterize Armegeddon as a traditional RPG MUD with heavy GM interaction...which is only possible in a world where (text) content is easy to create. While Armegeddon has some interesting implementations of basic game mechanics, there doesn't seem to be anything special about it from a game design standpoint. There's nothing original about their model, a model which is well-known. It's not like I'm saying Armegeddon is "teh suk", but that a model of real-time dynamic-content creation is impractical to extend to MMORPGs (UO/EQ/SB/WoW). I think what you consider "content" seems so easy when the majority of the rules are enforced manually by a small number of GMs.
I have to wonder if you've considered the questions of what happens when the playerbase is 20,000 players. Sure seems easy when it's run as a 1:many dictatorship of a small population. Where is the tiered oversight necessary to scale the GM system? Is there any kind of "plan" as to how much time should be spent creating content over administration and enforcement? Most importantly, how much are the GMs and designers getting paid and the daily costs to run and store the hardware? Most of these MUDs dont grow, because the model breaks at about 200 simultaneous participants. Running a game by volunteer is fun, as long as it's small and by definition, not an MMORPG.
If you're going to suggest games be run on human oversight, you start running into much harder questions than how many rats to get level 2.
unfortunately any game where you do something that has meaning, implies that it's a choice other ppl can make and yur either on the win side or the lose side. There is no dynamic push/pull when one side has to feel like they can win or it becomes pointless farming. I would love to hear about any other kind of repeatable experience other than PvE, or PvP, or Merchant vs Economy (which is really Player Time v Player Time with attrition), and how you would possibly implement this mystical 4th kind that doesnt exist...yet? If you dont make it repeatable, it's not saleable.
it might me worth mentioning that the criminals were working on windows before linux...so the moral is that those most interested in stable systems (especially when dealing with money as data) are choosing linux out of necessity.
I'm still trying to figure out why a site that purports to be informational (and KNOW ppl use it as such) containing blatantly false information can claim no responsibility. The "chalk analogy" is wrong, the parent's "store sign analogy" is more appropriate.
Being surprised and learning that something new is *true* is specifically what geeks search for. Disovering a new paradigm (MS superiority) wasn't found here. The admins were idiots (5 years of knowing how to spell Unix). What is true is that the study was broken and many of us wish it weren't so. You dont hand MS binaries to one guy and tell the other guy to build linux.so's....unless you want to tell the MS guy to build his Dlls too.
That's funny, because it seems I said a lot while you said nothing other than "I disagree".
I simply disagreed the first time. You went on and I called you on repetition. Sorry you're butthurt.
In the meantime you can cry sour grapes about how the web is shit, but I'll be out there running my own business and developing applications that people actually use.
Nowhere did I imply that I don't develop for the web. I specifically mention that I DO (sadly, solely). I won't tout (HTTP) web as a good platform, when my definition of a good platform includes a way to alter every layer...not just the colors of the presentation. My opinion that the web is a technically weak for apps, is a distinction my post makes, from your stated opinion at the time. You seem to have revised it.
Any moron can list 100 flaws with the web, but it takes a genius to come up with something better and get market penetration.
I believe it took a number of geniouses and a bit of luck to make the web useful and subsequently popular. I don't see how that's relevant to an assessment of merit. We're often put in the position of having to use what's available as a pragmatic measure, regardless of quality, without regard to it's development history. I don't understand the venom, when I'm simply pointing out what you have downplayed, and admittedly agree with. AJAX is another layer on a weak model. yay!
you think that content creation is an afterthought that can be accomplished equally well on any platform
I don't know where you got a snapshot of my thoughts, but I _do_ think content is independent of platform. My creative department is also independent of platform. I specify a format, they provide the content. Attempt a meaningful arguement or an embarassingly obvious example and I'll respond. I'm willing to be convinced but I don't think it's worth expounding on this.
Interesting post. Only, I disagree with what you list as strengths.
No Installation (false) Easy content creation (content is always easy and irrelevant to platform) Global hyperlinking system (true, hence URL...) Speedy interaction (false) True rapid development (so is VB, also bad) Standard navigation/bookmarking scheme (reiteration of previous point cause yur out of good things to say)
Working with Java or RealBasic or any other half-assed language with comparable use/capability makes Web Developers (like me) cry. The Web is 70's tech with millenium minds milking it. Like all software platforms that are 'hanging-on', something else will use it, then replace it.
People refuse to think outside their training. This is much the same as being stupid, to most geeks. While technically different, the fact we make a distinction is what makes us different! What happens when encountering something strange and new? MOST people IGNORE it. Linux is still too difficult for the average person to install and use. Yes, a LARGE portion of humanity (including these new-fangled-savvy-kids) still double clicks URLs. If you aren't going to accept that kind of mental lock, there can be no more rational discussion on the matter. This is a "self-flaggellating" article. next!
If your parents had been unfit, you might have died in a barrel. You fail to make a point, other than the fact that you hold a suffered brief life in the same light as a lived one. Humanity is no more sancrosanct than the sperm you aren't utilizing. You are sick.
That's subjective. Markets force decisions all the time, be the system capitalistic, socialistic, or communist, whether the market is food, energy, or livingspace. Your "points", if they can even be called that, are not relevant to the competence or de-facto NECESSITY of the NIH. As an aside, when I have dealt with the NIH regarding the rarest of diseases (non-inherited genetic disorders from mosaics) they have been exemplary. Private R&D does not care about the unwashed masses spreading the diseases nor those with very difficult diseases who are not worth spending money on before they expire. Public Medical R&D taxation is still TOO LOW. The fact the US government can't get it's spending priorities straight is a direct result of capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
Please expand on why Innodb is a valid reason to reject MySQL or even make it unattractive.
P.S.
For websites, MySQL still seems like a good choice. MySpace uses MySQL. I wonder what they would have to say?
I've never found any DB abstraction that was better than my homebrew. // Put in global include or instantiate as needed // optional: user,pass,server,db params
// I intuitively "see" the difference between a method and var when reading code
$MySQL = new mysql_connect();
$query = "select foo from bar";
$MySQL->query($query);
while($MySQL->next()){
$row = $MySQL->get_row();
}
---
Everything MySQL can tell me, the object knows or can figure out from the query itself...yes I substr out the type of query to determine method context
I love examining implementations of SQL absractions. I'm a geek like that.
I am of the view that the founders were not as bright as they are often touted. I agree it makes more sense that the 9th should be interpreted broadly (your view, as if we own these views), meaning I agree with you. Hamilton always understood people better than Jackson. Does it matter? No. Too many loopholes. No government can function under a broad interpretation. What was that whole civil war about anyway? Oh yeah, we switched interpretation...
/If narrow got us to free slaves, it had to happen ASAP. //Be interesting to see if narrow's what gets America in the end, was it worth it? yes.
If rights are are not explicitly enumerated within the constitution, they are not retained. Telephone, etc.
If the US Constitution was not to be interpreted in such a way, but to strictly follow the language of the 9th Amendment, why would it ever again, contain language with an intent other than to define/restrict rights. Rights would fall within an "infinitely broad" scope.
i.e.
Does the Constitution say I don't have a right to ignore the 6th Amendment? Nope. K, then it falls under the 9th Amendment that I can choose to ignore it.
Please explain how this is rational.
I have a passing interest in Ruby, but haven't seen nor heard of anything that would lead me to believe that Ruby is signifigantly better than PHP. The RoR video I watched, twice, led me to believe that LAMPoR would probably be a good product on the market. Often you mention serious security issues, regarding PHP which you do not identify, specifically. Furthermore, you profess that PHP is "severely flawed". That catches my attention.
/. acct, I can only see the last 24). I quickly realized I cannot possibly divine your views without this gaudy request. To be honest, I have been a PHP developer for 7 years. I am very interested in hearing from you further on this topic, if you could be more informative. I have no particular allegiance to PHP, as I use ASP/ColdFusion/Java daily. I do admit I haven't given much credit to Ruby as "cutting edge", in web development.
I recognize your name from a number of insightful posts, so I ended up browsing the last couple postings you have committed to history (not a paying
I apologize that I cannot send you a private message CyricZ. By posting I concede I am fanning the flames of those who are interested in making noise, and chance being ignored. Feel free to email me at jack9 at teacher com (throwaway addy)
It's apparently not obvious, because I and many other people wildly disagree with you.
In a purely economical sense, it's not worth it, on it's face. The value:cost ratio of adding 3 books of appendices to published encyclopedia volumes is unrealistic. Some people probably wildly (meaning fanatically?) disagree with many things that capitalism has borne out. The reality of the market is independent of the philosophical nature of truth, in that respect. Being able to request, receive, and understand the informational response, regarding any source, adequately fulfills the need to have it. I believe traceability is necessary, as facts and source are inexorably linked.
What does this have to do with information value? Nothing. You revalue information based on personal opinion on how it serves you on a case-by-case basis. Knowing how the white supremists view the Holocaust is just as valuable as knowing how it was recorded by the rest of the world. It does devalue the collection to have to question and investigate each individual sentence for validity based on your own criteria...oh wait I'm talking about Wikipedia again (the idea, not current implementation), while a single organization creating a monolithic collection would hopefully put a uniform bent to each sentence.
I think you have missed the point.
I think it's obvious that it's not worth the paper. I submit that you have never even attempted to ask for authorship information from an encyclopedia. I had a physics science project I failed in GRADE SCHOOL. This was primarily due to a failure to make the correct distinction between "potential" and "kinetic" energy. I was able to bring out the physical source. The project was given a revised grade after the instructor contacted the publisher who admitted it was a known misprint.
I think you can safely imagine that medical encyclopedias are fairly well documented, 30 years later (today). After 2 open heart surgeries and countless other illnesses encountered, I know so. My current views are based on my logical assumptions and experiences. YMMV.
I believe this is because, this rev. info is just as unreliable (in terms of determining accuracy or good judgement in deciding relevant content) as any single article currently displayed in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is now the only accurate word to describe this type of unwitting and part-time collaboration. An encyclopedia, it is not.
US media has been losing much of it's clout due to corrupting and scandal involving deliberate inaccuracy. Short answer, the news doesn't state the truth, but what their agents hear or see or what agenda they wish to promote. Attempts at stating facts of discovery (like the falsified Bush military records) have continued to be a sore spot, even with accountability.
Given the rate of decline in newspaper subscriptions in metropolitan areas, look for it on your handheld in the next 10 years. It will look a lot like network news looks. Newspapers can be queried for sources in most cases. The sources are often quoted.
Finally, are there sources of information that state they are authoritative, with a guarantee of accuracy? Why yes there is. Unfortunately, there are none that guarantee accuracy AND cover anything more than a very specific topic. (statistics on Federal wage rates, ballots, Grants, operating tolerances of a 1947 Chevy engine mount, etc.) I believe what you intended to ask was, "Is there a self-proclaimed authoritative source of general information?" Nope. You will find all publications (physical and virtual) cleverly have been reworded since, I presume the 1980's, to reflect the nebulous nature of "truth". Even Britannica now claims to be a "standard for reference" rather than a source of facts.
I would argue Liquid TV was a sampler of videos without bands. Then came The Real Life...sigh.
Word.
If yur looking to whip up a quick application and have any idea as to how Java or VB works (even driven programming), you might as well d/l the free trial RealBasic suite and use that. Yes, you need to purchase a license to instantiate a DB connection, but skip VB for when you want cross platform and dont want to insist on a JRE to run your program. /didnt read article //abandoned VB at v6 ///RB is not 100% stable to develop on windows, but good on linux/mac
All engineering requires persistent learning and reinvention. Anything less is work that can and should be automated.
The key phrase is "Some MUDs have already done this." Of course some (small) MU*'s can do dynamic content. You can characterize Armegeddon as a traditional RPG MUD with heavy GM interaction...which is only possible in a world where (text) content is easy to create. While Armegeddon has some interesting implementations of basic game mechanics, there doesn't seem to be anything special about it from a game design standpoint. There's nothing original about their model, a model which is well-known. It's not like I'm saying Armegeddon is "teh suk", but that a model of real-time dynamic-content creation is impractical to extend to MMORPGs (UO/EQ/SB/WoW). I think what you consider "content" seems so easy when the majority of the rules are enforced manually by a small number of GMs.
I have to wonder if you've considered the questions of what happens when the playerbase is 20,000 players. Sure seems easy when it's run as a 1:many dictatorship of a small population. Where is the tiered oversight necessary to scale the GM system? Is there any kind of "plan" as to how much time should be spent creating content over administration and enforcement? Most importantly, how much are the GMs and designers getting paid and the daily costs to run and store the hardware? Most of these MUDs dont grow, because the model breaks at about 200 simultaneous participants. Running a game by volunteer is fun, as long as it's small and by definition, not an MMORPG.
If you're going to suggest games be run on human oversight, you start running into much harder questions than how many rats to get level 2.
unfortunately any game where you do something that has meaning, implies that it's a choice other ppl can make and yur either on the win side or the lose side. There is no dynamic push/pull when one side has to feel like they can win or it becomes pointless farming. I would love to hear about any other kind of repeatable experience other than PvE, or PvP, or Merchant vs Economy (which is really Player Time v Player Time with attrition), and how you would possibly implement this mystical 4th kind that doesnt exist...yet? If you dont make it repeatable, it's not saleable.
it might me worth mentioning that the criminals were working on windows before linux...so the moral is that those most interested in stable systems (especially when dealing with money as data) are choosing linux out of necessity.
I'm still trying to figure out why a site that purports to be informational (and KNOW ppl use it as such) containing blatantly false information can claim no responsibility. The "chalk analogy" is wrong, the parent's "store sign analogy" is more appropriate.
Being surprised and learning that something new is *true* is specifically what geeks search for. Disovering a new paradigm (MS superiority) wasn't found here. The admins were idiots (5 years of knowing how to spell Unix). What is true is that the study was broken and many of us wish it weren't so. You dont hand MS binaries to one guy and tell the other guy to build linux .so's....unless you want to tell the MS guy to build his Dlls too.
Nowhere did I imply that I don't develop for the web. I specifically mention that I DO (sadly, solely). I won't tout (HTTP) web as a good platform, when my definition of a good platform includes a way to alter every layer...not just the colors of the presentation. My opinion that the web is a technically weak for apps, is a distinction my post makes, from your stated opinion at the time. You seem to have revised it.
I believe it took a number of geniouses and a bit of luck to make the web useful and subsequently popular. I don't see how that's relevant to an assessment of merit. We're often put in the position of having to use what's available as a pragmatic measure, regardless of quality, without regard to it's development history. I don't understand the venom, when I'm simply pointing out what you have downplayed, and admittedly agree with. AJAX is another layer on a weak model. yay!
I don't know where you got a snapshot of my thoughts, but I _do_ think content is independent of platform. My creative department is also independent of platform. I specify a format, they provide the content. Attempt a meaningful arguement or an embarassingly obvious example and I'll respond. I'm willing to be convinced but I don't think it's worth expounding on this.
Unfortunately, you can't afford a 20yr vet, for a webhosting company looking for someone to manage accounts using PHPMyAdmin. Plz.
Interesting post. Only, I disagree with what you list as strengths.
No Installation (false)
Easy content creation (content is always easy and irrelevant to platform)
Global hyperlinking system (true, hence URL...)
Speedy interaction (false)
True rapid development (so is VB, also bad)
Standard navigation/bookmarking scheme (reiteration of previous point cause yur out of good things to say)
Working with Java or RealBasic or any other half-assed language with comparable use/capability makes Web Developers (like me) cry. The Web is 70's tech with millenium minds milking it. Like all software platforms that are 'hanging-on', something else will use it, then replace it.
and that's the reason I don't use gmail. Others are just as good, for casual (most common) use.
I have not met any bright programmers that lacked skills because they didn't go to college. Point taken?
People refuse to think outside their training. This is much the same as being stupid, to most geeks. While technically different, the fact we make a distinction is what makes us different! What happens when encountering something strange and new? MOST people IGNORE it. Linux is still too difficult for the average person to install and use. Yes, a LARGE portion of humanity (including these new-fangled-savvy-kids) still double clicks URLs. If you aren't going to accept that kind of mental lock, there can be no more rational discussion on the matter. This is a "self-flaggellating" article. next!
If your parents had been unfit, you might have died in a barrel. You fail to make a point, other than the fact that you hold a suffered brief life in the same light as a lived one. Humanity is no more sancrosanct than the sperm you aren't utilizing. You are sick.
That's subjective. Markets force decisions all the time, be the system capitalistic, socialistic, or communist, whether the market is food, energy, or livingspace. Your "points", if they can even be called that, are not relevant to the competence or de-facto NECESSITY of the NIH. As an aside, when I have dealt with the NIH regarding the rarest of diseases (non-inherited genetic disorders from mosaics) they have been exemplary. Private R&D does not care about the unwashed masses spreading the diseases nor those with very difficult diseases who are not worth spending money on before they expire. Public Medical R&D taxation is still TOO LOW. The fact the US government can't get it's spending priorities straight is a direct result of capitalism.