Um... grassroots isnt marketing. Mysql, Firefox, Linux... none of these had marketing when they got adopted on servers and desktops around the world. Alot of open source software that never had marketing EVER dominates the industry due to grassroots and word of mouth alone. N marketing, no advertising.
As for nothing being sold, well tell that to everyone who based their products off those projects. Tell that to the manufacturers of servers, tell that to service providers. I'm sure the billions raked in by IBM don't count.
No because all real developers are beasts of logic and if logic dictates that invisible space beings watch and control our every move then you need to up your medication... or tell Tom Cruise to fuck off.
No. You don't build one schema that will meet all the needs of each function call for each cross database join for each table that has a foreign key connection in those 16 databases to that usr table in the other database. there could be 8 tables in each database and they themselves may need cross joined to each other (since they share the same foreign key).
I beleieve it would be something like 16^8. In other words, a shitload.
Nah. I dont use it because I still cant do a cross database join. That and features like SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS and query caching which make it EXTREMELY useful.
Not planning for scaling is a common failure of a bad developer. A good developer plans for scaling. Schemas arn't always a catchall solution. For instance, say I have a user table in one database but 16 other database have tables that have keys that reference that table. If I were to build schemas for EVERY function, I would have a SHITLOAD of schemas to manage. If I were to use ORM, I would have a bunch of bloated queries. Instead I can just build the queries as cross database joins and just manage the queries as an object associated with the class. No muss no fuss.
Second problem, if I implement this with schemas, I'm relying on the database to backup my sql and not a versioning control system. Should the database corrupt, bye bye code. Have fun recreating those schemas. Separating them out from the database into queries that you inject, enables you to better manage them, back them up and control them from one central location.
Planning is the other good element behind a good developer.
Oh one additional note, you can't version control the entries in a database. This would be another reason why you want the queries separate. When alot of your code (like I illustrated in my previous example) is based upon schemas, you are relying on your data remaining intact and your database not getting corrupted. At least with a versioning control systems you have your backups, your checkouts, your test environments, your tags and your production code.
Schemas will fail in this instance as well. Not a very good solution all in all.
Object Relational mapping is an entirely separate argument which could go on infinitely into the horizon. A cross database join is implemented is most major RDBMS... with the exception of POSTGRES. A common example is with a USR table. The USR_ID is shared across multiple databases but rather than building schemas for each instance that you would like to join on, you just join. Can you imagine the numbers of schemas you would have to maintain and manage in this instance if you had alot of databases that used that usr_id as a foreign key in their tables???
A schema is an unnecessary step though. Nothing is added to make that a needed step in this case (except in large scale implementations where it may an easier level of maintenance). It justs adds an extra layer of complexity and slows down what could be a far speedier query process and development process.
Not that I'm doing a bunch of cross database joins but I like to separate out my databases for future scalability on the network and schemas answer 70% of the solutions but leave others in the lurch as there are somethings you can do with cross database joins that you can't do with schemas that I am aware of.
Agreed. And often times, the simple solution is often easier and faster than the complex solution. Why add several additional steps when a cross database join will do the trick without any security concerns? If you have you structures separated and your data separated properly in an MVC codebase, a simple cross database join can save alot of time and simplify a procedure that other procedures would turn into a 4 or 5 step process.
The one thing that has stopped me from picking up Postgresql yet is that I can't do cross database joins on the same server. Should a user have the same permissions on two separate databases on the same server, a properly constructed query should be able to join across multiple DB's but they still don't implement this yet that I am aware of.
Thats a small example and only with web dev and only with small shops. But for that matter, what kind of development shop doesn't worry about their applications scaling? what kind of DEVELOPER doesn't worry about their app scaling? That isn't a developer, thats a hobbyist. A developer always worries about the scalability of their app. Scalability, reliability and performance. Anything else is just a hobbyist.
I can get the PHPULSE framework in PHP to scale on a 2 GHZ machine with 1GB of RAM up to approx 80 requests per second. I can get JAVA to do better. RUBY I can't get to do NYWHERE NEAR that!!! It does great in the short run then CAPS OFF!! Ruby has a very limited capability for what it can do and Rails even more limited (so say the developers too). To say that Ruby is more versatile than JAVA is a crock of shit that you are never going to be able to back up until Ruby grows up. And by then JAVA will have done alot of growing up as well.
You heard how great Vista was selling on MSN Money??? Grain of salt there pal. I'll bet that satan told you that hell was filled with virgins and ice water too and you believed it because HE told you so.
I knew one kid who was 19 and fresh from ITT technical school and was the sys admin at a local startup. The head developer built everything himself and they couldn't keep anyone hired to work with him because he was so unprofessional and refused to work with anyone. Eventually because that fresh faced ITT grad was the only one who could manage this developer, they gave him the title 'Software Development Manager' with no experience whatsoever.
Getting a management position is a crapshoot of who you know, whose butt you kissed and has absolutely NOTHING to do with your qualifications. I have only had TWO managers worth spit who were capable intelligent individuals; one at Amazon who they pretty much chased away for that very fact and another at a failed dotcom which failed because all the other managers were prime examples of what he wasn't.
Had my Macbook pro for months now and never one gotten a shock. I use it as my main computer at work and at home now and even play Warcraft on it for lengthy periods of time. The only shock I ever got was the sticker price... I was shocked that it was less expensive than the Dell!
Yes and it's a known fact that you don't dictate to the usr how they need to navigate; you have functional redundancy and easy to find nav.. including easy to find SITEMAP. I would have never looked here and found it by pure chance when looking all over for contact info. They guys are horrible.
Somple nav is one thing. Thats an obvious feature. Bt forcing ONE way to navigate, your way, isn't necessarily the best way. Users often want other ways to navigate, to link ideas and concepts. Rather than going to an 'edit page' to access editing functions, they may want to first access a 'view page' and then access edit functions from there. Several ways to navigate to the same place... not one. And all intuitive and easy to find.
How are these guys UI experts? They made the Universal flaw of placing their entire nav at the bottom of their site rather than breaking it up. You have to scroll to the bottom of the page each time you want to see the entire NAV!!! How is that an EXPERT decision? Imagine if Firefox were designed that way?
YAY! I for one welcome our new fascist state! I long for the day when I will feel safer because my every move is watched via sattelite and I am tracked like cattle from the moment I am born the the day the chip is burned out of by skull in an incinerator. God knows that at any moment even I too coud become a terrorist so its no wonder the state needs to watch me all the time and make sure I am a good consumer who does not question their motives.
Thank you George Orwe... I mean Bush and God Bless you.
Think of this. One house which looks well kempt with a 5 foot high wall a gated entrance, security cameras and limos coming and going...
Another house has a lawn that often needs mowing and a car that has some dents and roof that needs replaced.
One looks easy but slim pickings, the other looks hard but a good score. The house that looks like slim picking can be more secure internally than externally. Just because you don't LOOK secure doesn't mean you are. What I am saying is that you don't have to advertise your security and make people paranoid; that causes people to hide and skulk.
You want your opponent to be easier to catch so you want them to feel over confident. You should be secure but not advertise your security. Having very noticeable mechanism that can be observed in airports, watching what they do and reading up on airport security gives people a way to avoid it. If they don't KNOW what security methods are being used, they can't avoid it. The inobtrusive and unseen has a greater chance of success than that which sits in the open. It's like a giant robot sitting in on a bridge for everyone to see. Instead it should be hiding in the bushes or the trees or the walls or the floor.
The funny thing it's a psychological problem. If you act like a victim, people treat you like one. Stop actng like a victim and people stop treating you like one.
Unfortunately, because we have already portrayed ourselves AS a victim, even if we did this, we would still have issues. You can't stop every scenario.
My brother used to say that you can put bars on your windows and security cameras on your house and an electric fence and everything but if a thief truly wants in, they will ALWAYS find a way and there is little you can do but deter 99%. The best defense is to hide in plain site and don't look like someone worth victimizing.
I'd tell this to anyone on the bus, anyone looking to avoid a car breakin and even the US government; don't look like a victim and keep everything wide open... that way people will think they don't need to hide either and it makes them easier to catch as well. If you make them think they have to hide, you are going to make it harder to catch them. The best defense is no defense... that way people think they can walk right in.
I have this new invention called freedom and peace of mind. It allows people to travel without being paranoid or fascist. It's amazing. It's costs nothing to implement and only requires everyone to pull that giant corncob out of their asses.
Slashdot Mirror
As for nothing being sold, well tell that to everyone who based their products off those projects. Tell that to the manufacturers of servers, tell that to service providers. I'm sure the billions raked in by IBM don't count.
No because all real developers are beasts of logic and if logic dictates that invisible space beings watch and control our every move then you need to up your medication... or tell Tom Cruise to fuck off.
No we dont. Alot of us are atheists. Fuck Jesus and his fucking whore of a mother. There? See. I'm not offended at all.
No. You don't build one schema that will meet all the needs of each function call for each cross database join for each table that has a foreign key connection in those 16 databases to that usr table in the other database. there could be 8 tables in each database and they themselves may need cross joined to each other (since they share the same foreign key).
I beleieve it would be something like 16^8. In other words, a shitload.
Nah. I dont use it because I still cant do a cross database join. That and features like SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS and query caching which make it EXTREMELY useful.
Second problem, if I implement this with schemas, I'm relying on the database to backup my sql and not a versioning control system. Should the database corrupt, bye bye code. Have fun recreating those schemas. Separating them out from the database into queries that you inject, enables you to better manage them, back them up and control them from one central location.
Planning is the other good element behind a good developer.
Schemas will fail in this instance as well. Not a very good solution all in all.
Object Relational mapping is an entirely separate argument which could go on infinitely into the horizon. A cross database join is implemented is most major RDBMS... with the exception of POSTGRES. A common example is with a USR table. The USR_ID is shared across multiple databases but rather than building schemas for each instance that you would like to join on, you just join. Can you imagine the numbers of schemas you would have to maintain and manage in this instance if you had alot of databases that used that usr_id as a foreign key in their tables???
Not that I'm doing a bunch of cross database joins but I like to separate out my databases for future scalability on the network and schemas answer 70% of the solutions but leave others in the lurch as there are somethings you can do with cross database joins that you can't do with schemas that I am aware of.
Agreed. And often times, the simple solution is often easier and faster than the complex solution. Why add several additional steps when a cross database join will do the trick without any security concerns? If you have you structures separated and your data separated properly in an MVC codebase, a simple cross database join can save alot of time and simplify a procedure that other procedures would turn into a 4 or 5 step process.
The one thing that has stopped me from picking up Postgresql yet is that I can't do cross database joins on the same server. Should a user have the same permissions on two separate databases on the same server, a properly constructed query should be able to join across multiple DB's but they still don't implement this yet that I am aware of.
How long do you suppose its going to take someone in a coffee shop to find that bluetooth connection and start sending signals to it?
Thats a small example and only with web dev and only with small shops. But for that matter, what kind of development shop doesn't worry about their applications scaling? what kind of DEVELOPER doesn't worry about their app scaling? That isn't a developer, thats a hobbyist. A developer always worries about the scalability of their app. Scalability, reliability and performance. Anything else is just a hobbyist.
I can get the PHPULSE framework in PHP to scale on a 2 GHZ machine with 1GB of RAM up to approx 80 requests per second. I can get JAVA to do better. RUBY I can't get to do NYWHERE NEAR that!!! It does great in the short run then CAPS OFF!! Ruby has a very limited capability for what it can do and Rails even more limited (so say the developers too). To say that Ruby is more versatile than JAVA is a crock of shit that you are never going to be able to back up until Ruby grows up. And by then JAVA will have done alot of growing up as well.
You heard how great Vista was selling on MSN Money??? Grain of salt there pal. I'll bet that satan told you that hell was filled with virgins and ice water too and you believed it because HE told you so.
Getting a management position is a crapshoot of who you know, whose butt you kissed and has absolutely NOTHING to do with your qualifications. I have only had TWO managers worth spit who were capable intelligent individuals; one at Amazon who they pretty much chased away for that very fact and another at a failed dotcom which failed because all the other managers were prime examples of what he wasn't.
Duh. Magic has nothing to do with good engineering. Oh, wait... this must be someone from Microsoft. In, your case it does.
Had my Macbook pro for months now and never one gotten a shock. I use it as my main computer at work and at home now and even play Warcraft on it for lengthy periods of time. The only shock I ever got was the sticker price... I was shocked that it was less expensive than the Dell!
Heh... someone from Humanize got their feelings hurt. Next time learn to design an interface
Somple nav is one thing. Thats an obvious feature. Bt forcing ONE way to navigate, your way, isn't necessarily the best way. Users often want other ways to navigate, to link ideas and concepts. Rather than going to an 'edit page' to access editing functions, they may want to first access a 'view page' and then access edit functions from there. Several ways to navigate to the same place... not one. And all intuitive and easy to find.
How are these guys UI experts? They made the Universal flaw of placing their entire nav at the bottom of their site rather than breaking it up. You have to scroll to the bottom of the page each time you want to see the entire NAV!!! How is that an EXPERT decision? Imagine if Firefox were designed that way?
Thank you George Orwe... I mean Bush and God Bless you.
Another house has a lawn that often needs mowing and a car that has some dents and roof that needs replaced.
One looks easy but slim pickings, the other looks hard but a good score. The house that looks like slim picking can be more secure internally than externally. Just because you don't LOOK secure doesn't mean you are. What I am saying is that you don't have to advertise your security and make people paranoid; that causes people to hide and skulk.
You want your opponent to be easier to catch so you want them to feel over confident. You should be secure but not advertise your security. Having very noticeable mechanism that can be observed in airports, watching what they do and reading up on airport security gives people a way to avoid it. If they don't KNOW what security methods are being used, they can't avoid it. The inobtrusive and unseen has a greater chance of success than that which sits in the open. It's like a giant robot sitting in on a bridge for everyone to see. Instead it should be hiding in the bushes or the trees or the walls or the floor.
Unfortunately, because we have already portrayed ourselves AS a victim, even if we did this, we would still have issues. You can't stop every scenario.
My brother used to say that you can put bars on your windows and security cameras on your house and an electric fence and everything but if a thief truly wants in, they will ALWAYS find a way and there is little you can do but deter 99%. The best defense is to hide in plain site and don't look like someone worth victimizing.
I'd tell this to anyone on the bus, anyone looking to avoid a car breakin and even the US government; don't look like a victim and keep everything wide open... that way people will think they don't need to hide either and it makes them easier to catch as well. If you make them think they have to hide, you are going to make it harder to catch them. The best defense is no defense... that way people think they can walk right in.
I have this new invention called freedom and peace of mind. It allows people to travel without being paranoid or fascist. It's amazing. It's costs nothing to implement and only requires everyone to pull that giant corncob out of their asses.