They've always been considered as the same thing nearly everywhere.
Yes, but they are not even compatible.
Most people think SQL is relational, and it is not. It is definetly based on ðe relational model, but it has always violated ðe most basic principles of the model. In the case of RJ45, the misnaming seems to be based on simple visual resemblance.
And it's 8P8C modular connector, thank you. There are other types of eight pin, eight conductor connectors.
I did not know, thank you for ðe correction. But... citation?;-)
There are loads of proprietary, binary software around. Some people even run OS/2 because they won’t port their software to something newer. FreeDOS is around and used in production. Alpha emulated x86 quite competently, and current x86 processors are actually Risc chips with an x86 translation unit.
Until most software is based on open standards and free components that can be trivially recompiled, all platforms will live much longer than people would like them to.
Go for PostgreSQL-backed services whenever feasible. For example, ðere is a quite competent IMAP server called Archiveopteryx, you can run Mediawiki on PostgreSQL, as well as Zope and whatnot.
I used templates supplied by Create Space that were intended for MS Word. The documents were both several hundred pages and included illustrations. I used The Gimp to create front and back cover images and free fonts from Font Squirrel for the title fonts. OO worked perfectly.
Sanity happens. Now, if the templates are badly done with complex direct formatting, and if you have to go back and forth with the proprietary word processor several times, or if it is ‘Open’XML, then bad things happen.
Strangely enough, I've had better lucking importing huge documents ( > 400 pages ) into OO and formatting for print than in Word itself.
Not strange at all, if the original document used styles sanely instead of going for complex direct formatting.
When things really break is when one has to collaborate with people who resist to LibreOffice on some badly formatted document, and then you have to convert to and back again several times.
The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite files.
I think it's pretty clear that this is a fundamental shortfall of those files and formats, not of LO. The latter would have no problem opening and saving them if they were not obfuscated and undocumented. Just as with the nouveau driver, it's Jesus- worthy miracle that it works at all.
That was my point.
But I actually think it is not only the proprietary file formats being bad. It is also that the proprietary suite falls short in organising documents with styles and templates, so people use very complex direct formatting.
I remember at least three incidents where I was instructed to evaluate Open Office, Libre Office or other F/OSS word processing or layout packages. In each instance, the F/OSS products fell short in fundamental ways, and were a total disaster for larger documents.
Quite to the contrary, LibreOffice deals better with long documents than the proprietary alternative, and also it never corrupts complex documents like the proprietary alternative.
The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite files. Complexity which is fairly common, given the proprietary suite deficiencies in structuring documents.
Lack of knowledge is so sad. One has only to have a passing understanding of data models to read Reiser’s paper and realise he does not understand the fundamental concepts of the field. Such a waste of time, money and talents.
Yes, they do. The few of them, that is. SQL DBMSs do not, but they are not relational.
This requirement is where Spanner still looks like a key-value store: the primary keys form the name for a row, and each table denes a mapping from the primary-key columns to the non-primary-key columns.
This makes little sense to me, because it describes not a key-value store — unless you consider the ‘value’to be all non-primary key columns, which would stretch the definition of a key-value store —, but a relational database relation.
This is not true at all. Nearly all markets Microsoft entered they underpriced, usually a lot. Operating systems, server software, office suites, you name it — MS products were always cheaper than the then incumbent. What MS always did was to establish a proprietary lock-in by embracing, extending and extinguishing existing standards, so that they could avoid lowering prices — software having fat margins, former incumbents would underprice MS once they lost in the market, so avoiding a price war was of essence.
As far as I know this is the first time Microsoft enters a new market — actually, reenters a redefined market, as they failed to develop the market for tablets with their MS Windows for Pen Computing OS version and are now playing in a renewed by Apple and Google market — overpricing it. Netbook history, where Asus created the market with GNU/Linux and forced MS to lower the price on MS Windows XP, seems to indicate where will MS Windows RT prices will go after a few months. Downhill.
From the original paper linked at the summary post above:
Spanner’s data model is not purely relational, in that rows must have names. More precisely, every table is required to have an ordered set of one or more primary-key columns.
OK, relational keys should not be ordered. But the fact that each table must have a key makes it a relation, at least in principle, so Spanner at first looks like it is in fact more relational than SQL. Am I missing anything?
It seems at least one FAA certified product is a set including Flight Gear, so I would not use that to say X Plane is the only serious flight simulator to run on Apple Mac OS X & GNU/Linux.
Public sector salaries have been around 15% of GDP for a decade. Inflation reduce it, then raises increse it again, so it doesn't change much.
Yes — but ðat was while investment stagnated, commodities buoyed the economy and manufacturing stagnated, and education continues to widen the capability gap to oðer societies. Now public servants feel ðey deserve more, and society will not give ðem anything because it feels illserved; and, ðis being a government of syndicalists, it has to say no but does not know how to.
We are in a serious situation, we may get into a long term crisis. But we are not following the steps of Europe.
Mutatus mutandis, we are. Check my oðer post. To sum it up here, Southern Europe malinvested based on credit in Euros, in real state instead of manufacturing and services capabilities; we not even invested, but spent all we gained from commodities. And both of us are into a demographic transition changing ðe rules of ðe game, yet we are not capable even of acknowledging ðe fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJ45 directs you to eiðer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJ45_(telecommunications) or, thru a link named ‘RJ45 (computers), to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_connector#8P8C. Ðen read up.
They've always been considered as the same thing nearly everywhere.
Yes, but they are not even compatible.
Most people think SQL is relational, and it is not. It is definetly based on ðe relational model, but it has always violated ðe most basic principles of the model. In the case of RJ45, the misnaming seems to be based on simple visual resemblance.
And it's 8P8C modular connector, thank you. There are other types of eight pin, eight conductor connectors.
I did not know, thank you for ðe correction. But... citation? ;-)
For many people Ethernet is merely the RJ45 jack on the back of a laptop
Laptops have no RJ45 jacks. Nor have desktops. They have 8P8C connectors.
First Things.
There are loads of proprietary, binary software around. Some people even run OS/2 because they won’t port their software to something newer. FreeDOS is around and used in production. Alpha emulated x86 quite competently, and current x86 processors are actually Risc chips with an x86 translation unit.
Until most software is based on open standards and free components that can be trivially recompiled, all platforms will live much longer than people would like them to.
PostgreSQL has a wonderful wiki todo list. Just pick your task.
My pet peeves are on domains, localisation, derived relations, and integrity constraints.
No, they're made of iron that survives uncontrolled re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.
Something that never left cannot reenter.
Was not a Beech ðe first composite airplane?
use a virtualized server environment
And ðere goes I/O thru ðe drain.
Go for PostgreSQL-backed services whenever feasible. For example, ðere is a quite competent IMAP server called Archiveopteryx, you can run Mediawiki on PostgreSQL, as well as Zope and whatnot.
I used templates supplied by Create Space that were intended for MS Word. The documents were both several hundred pages and included illustrations. I used The Gimp to create front and back cover images and free fonts from Font Squirrel for the title fonts. OO worked
perfectly.
Sanity happens. Now, if the templates are badly done with complex direct formatting, and if you have to go back and forth with
the proprietary word processor several times, or if it is ‘Open’XML, then bad things happen.
Strangely enough, I've had better lucking importing huge documents ( > 400 pages ) into OO and formatting for print than in Word itself.
Not strange at all, if the original document used styles sanely instead of going for complex direct formatting.
When things really break is when one has to collaborate with people who resist to LibreOffice on some badly formatted document, and then you have to convert to
and back again several times.
You keep referring to The Proprietary Suite as if you're used to writing documents comparing it to open alternatives. "TPS Reports", if you will.
Sorry, I did not get your point. But yes, unfortunately I am often required to use it.
The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite
files.
I think it's pretty clear that this is a fundamental shortfall of those files and formats, not of LO. The latter would have no problem opening and saving them if they were not obfuscated and undocumented. Just as with the nouveau driver, it's Jesus- worthy miracle that it works at all.
That was my point.
But I actually think it is not only the proprietary file formats being bad. It is also that the proprietary suite falls short
in organising documents with styles and templates, so people use very complex direct formatting.
I remember at least three incidents where I was instructed to evaluate Open Office, Libre Office or other F/OSS word processing or layout packages. In each instance, the F/OSS products fell short in fundamental ways, and were a total disaster for larger documents.
Quite to the contrary, LibreOffice deals better with long documents than the proprietary alternative, and also it never
corrupts complex documents like the proprietary alternative.
The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite
files. Complexity which is fairly common, given the proprietary suite deficiencies in structuring documents.
Lack of knowledge is so sad. One has only to have a passing understanding of data models to read Reiser’s paper and realise he
does not understand the fundamental concepts of the field. Such a waste of time, money and talents.
Or, when will it run on GNU/Linux?
RDBMs don't require you to define primary keys
Yes, they do. The few of them, that is. SQL DBMSs do not, but they are not relational.
This requirement is where Spanner still looks like a key-value store: the primary keys form the name for a row, and each table denes a mapping from the
primary-key columns to the non-primary-key columns.
This makes little sense to me, because it describes not a key-value store — unless you consider the ‘value’to be all
non-primary key columns, which would stretch the definition of a key-value store —, but a relational database relation.
Codd's original book
Not a Book, but an article. Granted, Codd published a book aftwards, but that was not original anymore.
required every relation to have a primary key, even if the key is composed of all the columns.
Precisely.
Not sure about what do you mean with relationships here. Relationships are a concept of ERDs, not of the relational model.
This is not true at all. Nearly all markets Microsoft entered they underpriced, usually a lot. Operating systems, server
software, office suites, you name it — MS products were always cheaper than the then incumbent. What MS always
did was to establish a proprietary lock-in by embracing, extending and extinguishing existing standards, so that they
could avoid lowering prices — software having fat margins, former incumbents would underprice MS once they lost in the
market, so avoiding a price war was of essence.
As far as I know this is the first time Microsoft enters a new market — actually, reenters a redefined market, as they failed to
develop the market for tablets with their MS Windows for Pen Computing OS version and are now playing in a renewed by Apple
and Google market — overpricing it. Netbook history, where Asus created the market with GNU/Linux and forced MS to lower the
price on MS Windows XP, seems to indicate where will MS Windows RT prices will go after a few months. Downhill.
I do see how F1 is a fuller featured DBMS than Spanner, but it seems less relational, if it does not require that tables have
keys.
Tables without keys are not relations, so one could argue that Spanner is more, not less, relational than F1 and other SQL
systems.
From the original paper linked at the summary post above:
Spanner’s data model is not purely relational, in that rows must have names. More precisely, every table is required to have
an ordered set of one or more primary-key columns.
OK, relational keys should not be ordered. But the fact that each table must have a key makes it a relation, at least in
principle, so Spanner at first looks like it is in fact more relational than SQL. Am I missing anything?
FAA certification?
It seems at least one FAA certified product is a set including Flight Gear, so I would not use that to say X Plane is the only serious flight simulator to run on Apple Mac OS X & GNU/Linux.
What makes X Plane more serious than Flight Gear, let alone the only serious one?
its most important push into the smartphone
Why? All the others were equally touted, the difference being the situation was never as dire as it is now for MS WinCE.
Public sector salaries have been around 15% of GDP for a decade. Inflation reduce it, then raises increse it again, so it doesn't change much.
Yes — but ðat was while investment stagnated, commodities buoyed the economy and manufacturing stagnated, and education continues to widen the capability gap to oðer societies. Now public servants feel ðey deserve more, and society will not give ðem anything because it feels illserved; and, ðis being a government of syndicalists, it has to say no but does not know how to.
We are in a serious situation, we may get into a long term crisis. But we are not following the steps of Europe.
Mutatus mutandis, we are. Check my oðer post. To sum it up here, Southern Europe malinvested based on credit in Euros, in real state instead of manufacturing and services capabilities; we not even invested, but spent all we gained from commodities. And both of us are into a demographic transition changing ðe rules of ðe game, yet we are not capable even of acknowledging ðe fact.