There is a LOT of better database software than MySQL. I don't mean to slam on the project or the product, but why don't we go into things that are pretty standard that it DOESN'T do.
1) Enforce foriegn table constraints 2) Allow for subselects 3) Shall I continue? For most DBA's this is enough. It was for me.
No offense, but it REALLY is mindless to defend MySQL's capability against the systems that MS and IBM put out. It's ESPECIALLY mindless to put them up against Oracle.
MySQL is fine and all, but anybody who's going to fight on their side of this holy war is a fool. The product may be coming around, but it's just not there yet. We're not talking performance here, we're talking about database software that does what modern databases are SUPPOSED to do... not just nifty features. If I have a STANDARD database in 3NF, I'm going to get errant data from MySQL... end of story.
That's not slamming on it, that's being "honest." Most of the people here who post and know what they are talking about agree with me on this.
So, instead of throwing our fists in the air and saying "you can't do that," lets all just admit the shortcomings, and present "the truth." No FUD from our side either. When we have a better product (it will be what MySQL becomes, but not what it is), then we can start bragging.
The obvious answer to this, is to load a unix on everything, and share your home directory via NFS to all of these things, or perhaps a secure version.
Honestly, think of it. A minimalistic NFS with a bit more bandwidth and you have it.
Right, but this is talking about carriers wanting to switch. VoIP is cheaper because the carriers give you better rates. These carriers are paying over land lines that carry the IP, so they are paying the same rate that they would to carry non-ip signals... actually, they are paying a bit more because they are paying for the extra bandwidth. The only way that they MIGHT get a better deal is to split a line in an existant IP network that gets better rates, but even then, the IP network is paying the long haul rates. Perhaps bandwidth sharing would save them some cash, but major carriers like AT&T and Sprint don't really have anything to gain.
You still have to carry the IP over that network. Either way you pay for it, but in one you have to pay for the bandwidth overhead of encapsulating the data that you're actually trying to get from point A to point B in IP.
You can carry digital data over EXISTING digital phone networks IE anything that you like. All that VOIP does is force all of the data into the IP tunnel. It's already digital since it's capable of carrying IP.
Think about it though... Why? I mean, the reason that it's cheaper from me in my home, is because I'm already paying for the bandwidth with my cable company, who are paying comparable charges to the same that any phone carrier giving long distance would charge. At the level of phone carriers, the charges are still the same. VoIP is only cheaper for businesses and consumers who aren't already paying routing fees, but rather are paying the phone company's random long distance charges.
All digital phones just become bits... but yes, I can see where standardization helps. I still don't understand why SOME networks have made the switch though. Some it's litterally like, IP/SOMETHING/IP/SOMETHING tunneling. Very LOW network utilization.
Why do we do everything over IP? I mean, honestly, it's a good protocol and all, but it's not perfect for everything. There are already digital wireless phones, and not all of them use IP.
Why would one want to use an ATM/IP/IPX/IP network when they could just use whatever works best for that application?
I think that everyone out there wants to just use IP so they feel like they've made some sort of "internet device" when really they have just another damn device with an IP. You can always tunnel just the portions that you want over IP rather than forcing EVERY square peg into that round hole./rant
This is because of the way that X does it's rendering. Properly fitting the paradigm, this would be a function of the X Server, and there are X Servers that do this.
XFree86 isn't engineered for speed. Unfortunately, the way that X does business is just not the fastest way around... What it DOES gain however is the fact that it is network transparent and multi-user.
The patent was filed after Ebay openned, it wasn't even pending yet... and to read it, it doesn't even directly apply. The patent is fairly specific, specific enough to rule out what Ebay does.
Hopefully this works out better than the time I cronned apt-get upgrade under Debian's unstable tree
Yeah, no shit. When I FIRST started using Debian, I did pretty much the same thing, because I didn't have cable yet and wanted the downloads to go off while I was out (out being sporadic, I had a script that I'd fire off as I left).
One time I came home and had no X, no e-mail, about half of the programming tools I needed for class, and no cache of packages (disks were smaller then), so I also was SOL on any quick way to reinstall it.
Ok, but what media will be the standard readable/writeable that we can move between PCs. My parents don't have a burner... and neither do my grandfolks.
*Cough* X is good because it's built based on a client-server model and is network transparent. It's awesome for home users because multiple users to one terminal/access points to one terminal are good around the home too.
*cough* I think that the reason is that when you loan out a video tape, somebody has the potential to copy it. That and the fact that the video stores get it 6 months before consumers do.
This is yet another false layer of security... No offense, but I've seen this scheme before, and it just doesn't make sense.
Ok, so... user downloads a file as long as there's one available according to the system... Ok, so then when the user is done, they "check it back in" and the program deletes it/changes permissions/so forth to the local copy... What's to stop the user from keeping a copy while it's "checked out?" It IS saved on his machine... Even a user with rudimentary knowledge can break this system so they get to keep the files.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a LOT of better database software than MySQL. I don't mean to slam on the project or the product, but why don't we go into things that are pretty standard that it DOESN'T do.
1) Enforce foriegn table constraints
2) Allow for subselects
3) Shall I continue? For most DBA's this is enough. It was for me.
No offense, but it REALLY is mindless to defend MySQL's capability against the systems that MS and IBM put out. It's ESPECIALLY mindless to put them up against Oracle.
MySQL is fine and all, but anybody who's going to fight on their side of this holy war is a fool. The product may be coming around, but it's just not there yet. We're not talking performance here, we're talking about database software that does what modern databases are SUPPOSED to do... not just nifty features. If I have a STANDARD database in 3NF, I'm going to get errant data from MySQL... end of story.
That's not slamming on it, that's being "honest." Most of the people here who post and know what they are talking about agree with me on this.
So, instead of throwing our fists in the air and saying "you can't do that," lets all just admit the shortcomings, and present "the truth." No FUD from our side either. When we have a better product (it will be what MySQL becomes, but not what it is), then we can start bragging.
The obvious answer to this, is to load a unix on everything, and share your home directory via NFS to all of these things, or perhaps a secure version.
Honestly, think of it. A minimalistic NFS with a bit more bandwidth and you have it.
Right, but this is talking about carriers wanting to switch. VoIP is cheaper because the carriers give you better rates. These carriers are paying over land lines that carry the IP, so they are paying the same rate that they would to carry non-ip signals... actually, they are paying a bit more because they are paying for the extra bandwidth. The only way that they MIGHT get a better deal is to split a line in an existant IP network that gets better rates, but even then, the IP network is paying the long haul rates. Perhaps bandwidth sharing would save them some cash, but major carriers like AT&T and Sprint don't really have anything to gain.
You still have to carry the IP over that network. Either way you pay for it, but in one you have to pay for the bandwidth overhead of encapsulating the data that you're actually trying to get from point A to point B in IP.
You can carry digital data over EXISTING digital phone networks IE anything that you like. All that VOIP does is force all of the data into the IP tunnel. It's already digital since it's capable of carrying IP.
I thought that the wired portion of the phone system was already soft routed and mulitplexed?
Thank God someone agrees with me!
Think about it though... Why? I mean, the reason that it's cheaper from me in my home, is because I'm already paying for the bandwidth with my cable company, who are paying comparable charges to the same that any phone carrier giving long distance would charge. At the level of phone carriers, the charges are still the same. VoIP is only cheaper for businesses and consumers who aren't already paying routing fees, but rather are paying the phone company's random long distance charges.
All digital phones just become bits... but yes, I can see where standardization helps. I still don't understand why SOME networks have made the switch though. Some it's litterally like, IP/SOMETHING/IP/SOMETHING tunneling. Very LOW network utilization.
I'm a software engineer, and I asked the question.
Why do we do everything over IP? I mean, honestly, it's a good protocol and all, but it's not perfect for everything. There are already digital wireless phones, and not all of them use IP.
/rant
Why would one want to use an ATM/IP/IPX/IP network when they could just use whatever works best for that application?
I think that everyone out there wants to just use IP so they feel like they've made some sort of "internet device" when really they have just another damn device with an IP. You can always tunnel just the portions that you want over IP rather than forcing EVERY square peg into that round hole.
This is because of the way that X does it's rendering. Properly fitting the paradigm, this would be a function of the X Server, and there are X Servers that do this.
It's not that it's not fast enough, it's just that it's not written for speed. If you wanted a FAST GUI, BeOS was the place to be... or maybe Berlin.
XFree86 isn't engineered for speed. Unfortunately, the way that X does business is just not the fastest way around... What it DOES gain however is the fact that it is network transparent and multi-user.
The patent was filed after Ebay openned, it wasn't even pending yet... and to read it, it doesn't even directly apply. The patent is fairly specific, specific enough to rule out what Ebay does.
Hopefully this works out better than the time I cronned apt-get upgrade under Debian's unstable tree
Yeah, no shit. When I FIRST started using Debian, I did pretty much the same thing, because I didn't have cable yet and wanted the downloads to go off while I was out (out being sporadic, I had a script that I'd fire off as I left).
One time I came home and had no X, no e-mail, about half of the programming tools I needed for class, and no cache of packages (disks were smaller then), so I also was SOL on any quick way to reinstall it.
I'm not from GB, what is Grade 1?
Against Oracle?
Maybe when about a million things that are part of the SQL stanard make their way in. Last time I used MySQL, it couldn't do subselects.
Uhmm, somebody posted a paper on testing primality in polynomial time on the 6th... and the world didn't end.
Ok, but what media will be the standard readable/writeable that we can move between PCs. My parents don't have a burner... and neither do my grandfolks.
*Cough* X is good because it's built based on a client-server model and is network transparent. It's awesome for home users because multiple users to one terminal/access points to one terminal are good around the home too.
The true measure of the quality of a user interface... the airbrushed icons.
You can copy things from ram into files relatively simply.
*cough* I think that the reason is that when you loan out a video tape, somebody has the potential to copy it. That and the fact that the video stores get it 6 months before consumers do.
This is yet another false layer of security... No offense, but I've seen this scheme before, and it just doesn't make sense.
Ok, so... user downloads a file as long as there's one available according to the system... Ok, so then when the user is done, they "check it back in" and the program deletes it/changes permissions/so forth to the local copy... What's to stop the user from keeping a copy while it's "checked out?" It IS saved on his machine... Even a user with rudimentary knowledge can break this system so they get to keep the files.