>
You could pretty easily argue that SQL itself has the same tendencies to be exploitable as PHP
Only you'd be wrong. SQL is a data sublanguage, and has nothing to do with networking or access control or buffer overflows.
>
a quoted-string interface to data storage is begging for trouble from the start
Again, this might be MySQL, but it certainly ain't SQL. SQL defines a binary wire interface which name I forget, something like CLI for call-level interface.
Re:I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
>
Let me see if I understand this
You don't. In fact you can't read -- that's perhaps why you don't care about writing --, thus you understood nothing.
>
You stick your geekified sexist condescending attitude
Oh oh when you are loosing a (totally unimportant) debase you accuse the other part without any fundament... what has being a casual user to do with sexism? If I was a painter and my wife an informatician, it would be the same with reversed roles. So where's sexism here? C'mon, you just hate loosing. Everyone does, but learn to live with it.
>
This discussion was about what works in a terminal window from the very start.
You brought user interfaces in. In GNU Emacs one has a choice. It works from the very start, provided you read the first screen. And you keep shifting the discussion; first it was about power, that's why I mentioned Emacs.
>
for you that you use emacs for emaal *rolls eyes*, personally, I use an email client. I don't need to do regex substitution in my email.
I've had the displeasure... always more and more bloated and complex.
>
It's much better than its predecessors.
It is like saying MS WXP is better than MS-DOS. True, but not enough.
>
if you're writing for 9i, you should be able to exchange SQL with other databases fairly easily.
Not true at all. Lots of quirks -- datatypes, for example -- and omissions -- DOMAINs, userless SCHEMAs.
Re:I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
>
There is a cost associated with learning something terse like C or the interface for VI.
Interestingly, I recommend none. But I do recommend Lisp, D4 and GNU Emacs.
>
I do not use command line editors every day
These aren't command line editors we're talking about, GNU Emacs was always fullscreen and has a graphical interface -- not a Gnome HIG compliant one, but graphical.
>
I do not use [...] editors every day in the way that requires that kind of power
Most people write quite a lot. Emails, documents, whatever... learning to do it faster, with less effort, more efficiently does pay. Granted the interface is steep, but it is getting easier day by day. While an easy editor hardly gets more powerful.
>
Why do you bring your wife into the conversation?
She is a casual user.
>
There is a place for lightweight tools with limited featuresets
So I mentioned gEdit and OpenOffice.org.
>
If you want REAL power, you should be doing everything with sed
Are you trying to prove you know nothing about text editing?
>
Making all of your changes with regular expressions
That's what I do in GNU Emacs.
>
I was hoping to discuss genuine unix alternatives to QEdit.
But you mentioned power. If you want ease, go gEdit.
Better yet, go away.
Re:I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
>
More powerful yes, easier to use no.
From ease of use you go nowhere. From power, you get more productivity. And eventually, a nicer interface -- GNU Emacs CVS already uses Gtk+ as a widget set.
>
There's a few deviations here: PostgreSQL Gotchas
Thanks for the link!
Still PostgreSQL is much more compliant than MySQL, Oracle or SQL Server. Well-written ISO SQL code will usually work just OK on PostgreSQL, and PostgreSQL code will usually work just OK on, say, DB2 or Interbase. MySQL, SQL Server or Oracle code has to be extensively reworked, and even Emacs' replace-regexp can't always avoid manual intervention.
>
there are no databases fully compliant to the SQL standard
Last time I checked, IBM DB2 was fairly near, with PostgreSQL a close second, Interbase third.
Re:I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
SQL is a language, defined by ISO. MySQL is not SQL-compliant. Not even Oracle is. IBM DB2, PostgreSQL are SQL compliant, and a lot better than MySQL too. PostgreSQL is even faster and simpler.
Security comes from simplicity, not complexity. And security should start at the DBMS level, not be left to applications.
Re:I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
>
It's macros were extremely usable on the fly and I've found nothing else that balance of power and features that it had.
> Column copy, split windows, multiple macros that could be quickly defined by a simple to use keystroke recorder. Completely configurable. Oh, and fast and small.
For those of us Gnome diehards, there's Passepartout. Since I've no use for DTP, I've no idea if it is, or has the potential to be, anywhere as good as Scribus.
>
The name came from the cylinder heads, which had a
hemispherical design. The design itself wasn't new, but it had never been used
in a passenger car before.
Simply not true. The German 1,930's Düsenberg J had it.
It is incredible how the US has to try and take credit for everything under the Sun.
Obviously, if the percentage of dialup users wishing to remain is stable, it could be that their percentage vis-à-vis the total number of Net users, or even their absolute numbers, at least in rich countries, is diminishing.
The guy mentions problems with support from Debian, hardware and software.
I fail to see what's wrong with Debian and hardware. As for software, the only problem is proprietary software like Oracle. Which is non-SQL compliant, expensive and bloated anyway.
Not being a programmer, I always thought Objective C to be the nicer OO C alternative, having been eclipsed by C++ and its derivatives for marketing reasons.
So the question is, how would D compare to Objective C?
Obviously a deeper question would be why insist on C derivatives instead of going functional and relational... once one's already smoking stuff...
It is interesting that for/. crowd everything not an IBM-compatible PC is either proprietary or custom or whatever.
The truth is there is nothing more custom or proprietary to RISC than to the IBM-compatible PC, probably less. While the BIOS and such became common knowledge and the legal ability to produce x86 clones became widespread, there is nothing inherently open there: AMD-64 and IA-64 can well shed all that and become AMD and Intel exclusives. In fact it seems that IA-64 is already there.
On the other hand, SPARC is a standard, the PowerPC is joint developed, and all RISCs use open standards like OpenFirmware. And definetely IBM stuff is made in volume and widely available, if pricier than your standard white box stuff.
It is sad for the individuals, but collectively it is just fair. It is payout time for rich countries' protectionism.
Sad thing is, protectionism will probably continue to rise. It has already ceased to diminish, so these sad stories will become more and more common, and people all over the world will have more and more trouble getting out of poverty.
Will do, but O'Reilly texts are neither available in the Net, nor succint enough to serve as subsidies to/. discussion, nor authoritative on data matters.
>
the term was coined in 1975 by Richard Saul Wurman to refer to something far removed from entity-relationship diagrams
To wit?
BTW, ERDs are only presentation tools. A DBA who uses them to model data is not worth its weight in salt.
>
Unfortunately this just doesn't work - which is why we have governments.
Granted. But governments will do nothing without a measure of wisdom from society. That explains a lot what's (not) happening nowadays.
>
there must be a government that, among other things, passes the laws the legal system enforces. And how would anyone be convicted unless there is a legal system? By opinion polls? And if so, who should conduct them?
Government is too generic a term. There is the Judiciary, the Parlament and the Executive. Laws are passed by Parlament, whose election is remarkable close to opinion polls...
Slashdot Mirror
Only you'd be wrong. SQL is a data sublanguage, and has nothing to do with networking or access control or buffer overflows.
Again, this might be MySQL, but it certainly ain't SQL. SQL defines a binary wire interface which name I forget, something like CLI for call-level interface.
You don't. In fact you can't read -- that's perhaps why you don't care about writing --, thus you understood nothing.
Oh oh when you are loosing a (totally unimportant) debase you accuse the other part without any fundament... what has being a casual user to do with sexism? If I was a painter and my wife an informatician, it would be the same with reversed roles. So where's sexism here? C'mon, you just hate loosing. Everyone does, but learn to live with it.
You brought user interfaces in. In GNU Emacs one has a choice. It works from the very start, provided you read the first screen. And you keep shifting the discussion; first it was about power, that's why I mentioned Emacs.
It's all text.
I've had the displeasure... always more and more bloated and complex.
It is like saying MS WXP is better than MS-DOS. True, but not enough.
Not true at all. Lots of quirks -- datatypes, for example -- and omissions -- DOMAINs, userless SCHEMAs.
Interestingly, I recommend none. But I do recommend Lisp, D4 and GNU Emacs.
These aren't command line editors we're talking about, GNU Emacs was always fullscreen and has a graphical interface -- not a Gnome HIG compliant one, but graphical.
Most people write quite a lot. Emails, documents, whatever... learning to do it faster, with less effort, more efficiently does pay. Granted the interface is steep, but it is getting easier day by day. While an easy editor hardly gets more powerful.
She is a casual user.
So I mentioned gEdit and OpenOffice.org.
Are you trying to prove you know nothing about text editing?
That's what I do in GNU Emacs.
But you mentioned power. If you want ease, go gEdit.
Better yet, go away.
From ease of use you go nowhere. From power, you get more productivity. And eventually, a nicer interface -- GNU Emacs CVS already uses Gtk+ as a widget set.
For my wife I get gEdit and OpenOffice.org.
Thanks for the link!
Still PostgreSQL is much more compliant than MySQL, Oracle or SQL Server. Well-written ISO SQL code will usually work just OK on PostgreSQL, and PostgreSQL code will usually work just OK on, say, DB2 or Interbase. MySQL, SQL Server or Oracle code has to be extensively reworked, and even Emacs' replace-regexp can't always avoid manual intervention.
Last time I checked, IBM DB2 was fairly near, with PostgreSQL a close second, Interbase third.
Yeah, it's better.
When will /. stop posting misinformation?
SQL is a language, defined by ISO. MySQL is not SQL-compliant. Not even Oracle is. IBM DB2, PostgreSQL are SQL compliant, and a lot better than MySQL too. PostgreSQL is even faster and simpler.
Security comes from simplicity, not complexity. And security should start at the DBMS level, not be left to applications.
You've quite described GNU Emacs.
For those of us Gnome diehards, there's Passepartout. Since I've no use for DTP, I've no idea if it is, or has the potential to be, anywhere as good as Scribus.
Also, bad thing the Gnome LyX frontend stalled...
Much older than that. Any CD burner will suffice, with any OS supporting it. I guess even 4MiB memory would suffice.
Simply not true. The German 1,930's Düsenberg J had it.
It is incredible how the US has to try and take credit for everything under the Sun.
Obviously, if the percentage of dialup users wishing to remain is stable, it could be that their percentage vis-à-vis the total number of Net users, or even their absolute numbers, at least in rich countries, is diminishing.
The guy mentions problems with support from Debian, hardware and software.
I fail to see what's wrong with Debian and hardware. As for software, the only problem is proprietary software like Oracle. Which is non-SQL compliant, expensive and bloated anyway.
Not true. UnitedLinux and SuSE are also certified. In fact Oracle is compiled not on Red Hat, but on SuSE.
Only that Oracle isn't compiled on Red Hat. It is compile on, guess it... SuSE!
You just get no support from Oracle.
Not being a programmer, I always thought Objective C to be the nicer OO C alternative, having been eclipsed by C++ and its derivatives for marketing reasons.
So the question is, how would D compare to Objective C?
Obviously a deeper question would be why insist on C derivatives instead of going functional and relational... once one's already smoking stuff...
Shouldn't we always say MS Windows, since there is the X Window System, the window managers, and other windowing systems around?
It is interesting that for /. crowd everything not an IBM-compatible PC is either proprietary or custom or whatever.
The truth is there is nothing more custom or proprietary to RISC than to the IBM-compatible PC, probably less. While the BIOS and such became common knowledge and the legal ability to produce x86 clones became widespread, there is nothing inherently open there: AMD-64 and IA-64 can well shed all that and become AMD and Intel exclusives. In fact it seems that IA-64 is already there.
On the other hand, SPARC is a standard, the PowerPC is joint developed, and all RISCs use open standards like OpenFirmware. And definetely IBM stuff is made in volume and widely available, if pricier than your standard white box stuff.
It is sad for the individuals, but collectively it is just fair. It is payout time for rich countries' protectionism.
Sad thing is, protectionism will probably continue to rise. It has already ceased to diminish, so these sad stories will become more and more common, and people all over the world will have more and more trouble getting out of poverty.
Will do, but O'Reilly texts are neither available in the Net, nor succint enough to serve as subsidies to /. discussion, nor authoritative on data matters.
To wit?
BTW, ERDs are only presentation tools. A DBA who uses them to model data is not worth its weight in salt.
Granted. But governments will do nothing without a measure of wisdom from society. That explains a lot what's (not) happening nowadays.
Government is too generic a term. There is the Judiciary, the Parlament and the Executive. Laws are passed by Parlament, whose election is remarkable close to opinion polls...
Ma ze? Que isso? Qu'est-ce que c'est ca? What's that?
Yet another buzzword for DBAs and data modellers to make for the general lack of understanding on data fundamentals?