And it provides so little in the way of data integrity, that you'll have to spend that much more time adding the necessary functionality into your app layer.
Example? Okay, whip out your MySQL client and type with me...
CREATE TABLE test (
id INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY_KEY,
num1 INT,
num2 INT NOT NULL,
num3 INT
price NUMERIC(4,2),
code VARCHAR(8), );
INSERT INTO test VALUES (
0,
99999999999999,
NULL,
'A quick brown dolphin...',
21474.83,
'ABCDEFGHIJK' );
...now after this, it should have given you a message like:
"Query OK, 1 row affected"
Seems to me that the data was a collection of square pegs to round holes, but MySQL never even dropped a warning.
Now stop. Take another look at the table definition. Take another look at the inserted data. Take another look at the output. Take another look at what has been stored in your database. Let's sum up: your primary key (your lookup key!) is not what you expected, the numbers are all different from what you entered, the price does not conform to your data schema (should be a maximum of 99.99), and your character string has been truncated...ALL WITHOUT AN ERROR OR WARNING.
More examples at MySQL Gotchas. All of this in MySQL v4.0 and above. None of this crap happens in Firebird 1.5, PostgreSQL 7.x, or any popular closed source relational database.
...and it is crap. You have crap data in your database, and MySQL never let you know. For those of you out there who never ever write code with bugs, there's no problem; Go on ahead using MySQL. (Then again, you're in high demand for senior, very well paying jobs using Oracle or DB2 in Fortune 100 companies if that's the case.) For all the other folks out there (which includes everyone out there doing web development with dynamically typed languages like Perl and PHP), MySQL will happily insert crap data.
And yes, there's a PostgreSQL Gotchas page. Tables are lowercase by default, and it requires the "AS" keyword for column aliases. Look at that list for PostgreSQL. Look at that above example. Can someone say with a straight face that these lists are comparable? Can someone say with a straight face that they want to explain to the computer-phobe why they got 2147483647 in their data? Can someone say with a straight face to their boss that these errors are acceptable in a production environment?
It's not like you can just drop an *.mdb file onto a box and use it. Access still needs to be installed. This puts it on about equal footing with MS Access in that even though MS Access is more common, MySQL is a free download if the system you're on doesn't have it. Of course, that assumes your office is running MS Windows. (Not a bad assumption, but good to keep in mind.)
Along those lines, you shouldn't be coding directly to MS Access anyway. Writing your stuff to an ODBC datasource is a much better choice. Luckily, every popular database in existance has an ODBC driver. With ODBC (or ADO) and a client-server database, you can have the database local to you for initial development and then move it off to a dedicated server without changing a single line of code. With a MS Access database, you can have a dedicated fileserver, but locking issues between clients get really hairy after more than a couple of people connect and work at the same time.
SQLite is great if memory constraints are very tight and you probably won't move to a client-server model in the future. How much is a 256MB DIMM these days? 256MB is enough for most relational databases to have a field day with the datasets that MS Access is used to. And memory's only getting cheaper. Make sure that you have a real need to constrain yourself to the in-process model before jumping in.
Also note that if you use an ODBC datasource, you can use the comparatively wonderful Access frontend and have a real data store in the background doing the heavy lifting.
But then, if you really wanted to do it right, you'd use something better than MySQL on that backend like MaxDB, Firebird, or PostgreSQL; Same cost, more features, scale better with concurrent writes, and safer for your data (actually tells you when crap data is trying to find its way in) than MySQL. Remember, if you're talking about replacing MS Access, you're probably not talking about a web environment anymore. Chances are that it's not 99% reads.
...if you don't use transactions, stored procedures, triggers, views, sequences (read: real ones), or if you actually want your database to be typesafe and have your insert/update to throw an error (or at least a warning!) on invalid data. Otherwise MySQL is most certainly not a viable replacement, although the codebase which used to be called SAPDB is. Firebird also qualifies for a replacement.
Also, if you need advanced XML querying tools for your database, none of the open source RDBMSs can currently act as a reasonable drop-in replacement for MS SQL Server.
If you don't need any of those features (and especially haven't actually used any of them in existing code), then MySQL could be added to the list of open source RDBMSs that fit the requirements for your project.
Now finally MySQL will look good on the client. Too damn bad all that GUI work is hobbled by such a crap datastore. I honestly wonder how the GUI will react to all of the silent "best guess" errors....must do a lot of data display refreshes.
PNG compresses line art better than GIF. As for continuous tone images (JPEG's bread and butter), PNG falls behind. But then again, with line art, JPEG falls behind.
Always speak of the problems that need to be solved -- not the people you believe caused the problems. Problems, when made personal, are much harder to deal with.
If you say something, the work environment may be worse off. Don't say anything, and it definitely will.
This is where the rubber hits the road. If the boss honestly wants to hear what's going on so that he/she can help, not telling him/her means a missed opportunity to make everyone's life (including yours) better. If the boss is looking for ways to trick you or is not competant enough to help once given all of the info, chances are that you're screwed anyway.
Most bosses never ask. They just wait until something goes horribly wrong. Yours has taken some initiative.
I thought movie makers were being unoriginal and cutting costs by using that annoying special effect when someone died.
As it turns out, movie makers were beig unoriginal and sought to use that insipid, annoying, repetitive, piece of crap sound effect for nostalgia's sake.
Witness the consistent interface. Marvel at the dynamic threading. Be wowed by the stimulus to content generation.
Boy howdy, I am sure glad Microsoft is innovating here. I mean right now I could access news and discussions from any computer with a web browser. Now that Microsoft has laid its innovating hand on the problem, I'll only be able to get this from my MS Windows box. Thank heaven for Microsoft because I really enjoy having to set up my email account settings on my friends' computers.
I mean if it weren't for this "thinking out of the box" idea, communication might actually take a step forward. Whew! That was close! No one wants that.
Yes and those kiosk machines at cafes? What about at your friend's house? S/he has a computer with a news/email reader, but is it set up for you yet? Is it already to go with the next unread message?
No, this information should go on a server so that no matter where you go, you will have the same access to info. And it should have a login to differentiate your settings from other persons'. And it should be...like a web forum where interface and access are not dependent upon your location.
Email conversations don't mirror web forums. Web forums replicate email...or rather web forums replicate USENET. But USENET has its limitations -- namely that not all computers have a news reader. 99.999% of all networked computers have a web browser installed however.
Strongbad impersonation mode *on*
So just take your USENET groups and put a web interface on them so that everyone can use it. And...ummm...it would look like a web forum. And...ummm...people with a news reader could use it too except...ummm...the people with a news reader also have a browser. So...ummm...why not just have a web forum?...stupid!
You know what would be really cool? Let's have a web forum where we can talk about how great it would be to reinvent the news reader...ummm...that we don't need and...ummm...that's what we're doing right now.
Ummm...yeah. Maybe...ummm...USENET is pointless except as a distributed backend for a web forum (which would be very cool). But...wouldn't that make this "new technology" obsolete before it even starts...err...is rehashed?
Future Outlook versions might integrate the nested interface for e-mail conversations.
Oooooh! (devilish laugh) Wouldn't that be cool! It'd be like...ummm...IMAP with...ummm...sorting by thread...ummm...ummm...I think we've already got that...already...
This crap is obviously neither good nor awesome. It is just...crap.
You can't click a wheel as a third button even after giving a little bit of training time? Methinks you have some hand coordination issues that far outweigh the need for a third button.
Then why have mouse manufacturers been shipping drivers that map the third button for years?
Does everyone use the third button? Of course not. There are many folks (novice Mac users) who use just one.
However, your rebuttal serves my point better than yours. The consumer population in general sees value in a wheel where they didn't see (as much) value in a third button. Whereas the third button never really took off (for whatever reasons), the wheels caused a huge influx of new mouse purchases. I think that speaks volumes.
In addition, even with a two-button mouse, you can click both buttons to simulate a third button (a chord): a single step. The alternative for mouses without a wheel (on OSes that support it), is to hit the third button to enable mouse scroll and again to turn it off: a two step process. When switching between apps/windows, one is better. Then again, with the wheel acting as a button, you have the best of both worlds.
Besides, it wasn't that she was tough, it was that she was intentionally being an asshole to everyone.
Like encouraging Apollo to patch things up with his old man? You'll note that immediately after she was "an asshole" to the colonel, he started taking a serious look at his drinking problem.
But she's a liability in combat. She was so busy wrapped up in her own little world, that she completely missed the recall notice!
Did she now? On a recall notice in a firefight, do you honestly believe that everyone turns their backs at once? Since they can't land all at the same time, it has to be staggered. Had Apollo's fighter not been seriously damaged, perhaps they would have been on schedule. You're faulting her for not immediately ditching her wingman.
As for Zack, I think it was clear that she felt more than her fair share of guilt about the subject. How would you take it if you were responsible for the death of your lover? Become a little numb? A little callous?
If you watch again, she doesn't take that type of risk all of the time. In the previous battle, she did her job and prevented two out of three missiles from hitting the Gallactica. In the final battle, rather than leaving a teammate behind, she risked her own life to save him. If her reputation is to take risks that ultimately save teammates, I can guarantee you that most folks would want her on the squad.
I never said they were the same. Okay, let me rephrase: You can click a wheel in place of a third button perfectly well. A large portion of the consumer population seems to agree with me.
Just because a scroll wheel can be used as a button does not mean that it's logical to have nothing but scroll wheels. You are trying to adapt the notion of ad absurdum, taking a particular facet of an argument to its most extreme case. This rarely works with engineering. For example, a suspension bridge may have three towers over the span. By your logic, because having twenty towers would be untenable, suspension bridges are foolish.
The fact that mouses come with buttons and wheels shows that they are not, in fact, the same. We are in agreement there. I am merely asserting the wheel mouses are largely superior in that button-only mouses lack the ability to scroll -- a very common activity for most of us with a GUI -- while wheel mouses can scroll in addition to performing all duties of the button-only mouse. Add to it that most individuals either don't use the third mouse button or, like me, did not find it to be such a vast hardship to hone the required hand/finger coordination to use both the third button feature and the wheel.
If three wheels were sufficiently easy to use (and a suitable usage were found), I'd advocate for them too. As it stands, I doubt that they would be. On the other hand, I do find single wheel mouses extremely easy to use.
For the visuals. Queries can be made by dragging and dropping columns from tables. Table creation without learning SQL syntax is simple as well. For that alone, I would recommend Access. It makes it easy to teach the concepts before being mired in syntax cruft.
That said, I would recommend using Access as a frontend to a real database via ODBC. Then you have the ease of use and baby steps at the beginning as well as the power, seamless transition to better functionality, and (perhaps most important) the hint that Access should rarely be used on its own for all but the most trivial of projects.
He's definitely thinking about which way to go. More likely, he's trying to figure out how to make sure he doesn't get caught doing it -- choice of words/inflections matters here.
He says nothing until his name is called out. Only then does he tell the woman next to him the number and call it out to others....while also stating that he "didn't do anything."
Not to be heartless (well, maybe I am), but why would folks past a certain age go? I think back to movies like "Deep Impact" where the lottery specifically excluded individuals over the age of fifty unless they were already on the list of useful and important people.
Slashdot Mirror
As MySQL doesn't support stored procedures, these statements are incompatible. But then you knew that didn't you, you cheeky bastard.
So there still isn't a production-quality MySQL server.
Example? Okay, whip out your MySQL client and type with me...
CREATE TABLE test (
id INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY_KEY,
num1 INT,
num2 INT NOT NULL,
num3 INT
price NUMERIC(4,2),
code VARCHAR(8),
);
INSERT INTO test VALUES (
0,
99999999999999,
NULL,
'A quick brown dolphin...',
21474.83,
'ABCDEFGHIJK'
);
"Query OK, 1 row affected"
Seems to me that the data was a collection of square pegs to round holes, but MySQL never even dropped a warning.
So let's check out that table again:
SELECT * FROM test;
1 row with the following is returned.
id: 1
num1: 2147483647
num2: 0
num3: 0
price: 999.99
code: ABCDEFGH
Now stop. Take another look at the table definition. Take another look at the inserted data. Take another look at the output. Take another look at what has been stored in your database. Let's sum up: your primary key (your lookup key!) is not what you expected, the numbers are all different from what you entered, the price does not conform to your data schema (should be a maximum of 99.99), and your character string has been truncated...ALL WITHOUT AN ERROR OR WARNING.
More examples at MySQL Gotchas. All of this in MySQL v4.0 and above. None of this crap happens in Firebird 1.5, PostgreSQL 7.x, or any popular closed source relational database.
And yes, there's a PostgreSQL Gotchas page. Tables are lowercase by default, and it requires the "AS" keyword for column aliases. Look at that list for PostgreSQL. Look at that above example. Can someone say with a straight face that these lists are comparable? Can someone say with a straight face that they want to explain to the computer-phobe why they got 2147483647 in their data? Can someone say with a straight face to their boss that these errors are acceptable in a production environment?
It's not like you can just drop an *.mdb file onto a box and use it. Access still needs to be installed. This puts it on about equal footing with MS Access in that even though MS Access is more common, MySQL is a free download if the system you're on doesn't have it. Of course, that assumes your office is running MS Windows. (Not a bad assumption, but good to keep in mind.)
Along those lines, you shouldn't be coding directly to MS Access anyway. Writing your stuff to an ODBC datasource is a much better choice. Luckily, every popular database in existance has an ODBC driver. With ODBC (or ADO) and a client-server database, you can have the database local to you for initial development and then move it off to a dedicated server without changing a single line of code. With a MS Access database, you can have a dedicated fileserver, but locking issues between clients get really hairy after more than a couple of people connect and work at the same time.
SQLite is great if memory constraints are very tight and you probably won't move to a client-server model in the future. How much is a 256MB DIMM these days? 256MB is enough for most relational databases to have a field day with the datasets that MS Access is used to. And memory's only getting cheaper. Make sure that you have a real need to constrain yourself to the in-process model before jumping in.
Also note that if you use an ODBC datasource, you can use the comparatively wonderful Access frontend and have a real data store in the background doing the heavy lifting.
But then, if you really wanted to do it right, you'd use something better than MySQL on that backend like MaxDB, Firebird, or PostgreSQL; Same cost, more features, scale better with concurrent writes, and safer for your data (actually tells you when crap data is trying to find its way in) than MySQL. Remember, if you're talking about replacing MS Access, you're probably not talking about a web environment anymore. Chances are that it's not 99% reads.
...if you don't use transactions, stored procedures, triggers, views, sequences (read: real ones), or if you actually want your database to be typesafe and have your insert/update to throw an error (or at least a warning!) on invalid data. Otherwise MySQL is most certainly not a viable replacement, although the codebase which used to be called SAPDB is. Firebird also qualifies for a replacement.
Also, if you need advanced XML querying tools for your database, none of the open source RDBMSs can currently act as a reasonable drop-in replacement for MS SQL Server.
If you don't need any of those features (and especially haven't actually used any of them in existing code), then MySQL could be added to the list of open source RDBMSs that fit the requirements for your project.
Now finally MySQL will look good on the client. Too damn bad all that GUI work is hobbled by such a crap datastore. I honestly wonder how the GUI will react to all of the silent "best guess" errors. ...must do a lot of data display refreshes.
http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html
It's like when Windows Millenium Edition was released. Sure it was pretty, but what lay beneath was atrocious.
Not karma whoring. Just humor impaired.
HAND.
I can see the images. The background transparency is busted (a bluish gray slate), but I see the images.
Sure they look much better in Firebird (and basically every other browser), but this is a far cry from not showing PNGs at all.
Did you really include The SCO Group in the list of leading tech companies?
Or more precisely, did you really include them with a straight face?
PNG compresses line art better than GIF. As for continuous tone images (JPEG's bread and butter), PNG falls behind. But then again, with line art, JPEG falls behind.
Right tool for right job and all of that...
I'm using 6.0 and I can see PNGs just fine. Well...as well as IE ever did.
Oh yes...very important:
Always speak of the problems that need to be solved -- not the people you believe caused the problems. Problems, when made personal, are much harder to deal with.
If you say something, the work environment may be worse off. Don't say anything, and it definitely will.
This is where the rubber hits the road. If the boss honestly wants to hear what's going on so that he/she can help, not telling him/her means a missed opportunity to make everyone's life (including yours) better. If the boss is looking for ways to trick you or is not competant enough to help once given all of the info, chances are that you're screwed anyway.
Most bosses never ask. They just wait until something goes horribly wrong. Yours has taken some initiative.
Or if that is too much to digest, I wrote a fairly easy to follow summary on kuro5hin.
I thought movie makers were being unoriginal and cutting costs by using that annoying special effect when someone died.
As it turns out, movie makers were beig unoriginal and sought to use that insipid, annoying, repetitive, piece of crap sound effect for nostalgia's sake.
Thank goodness that's cleared up.
Microsoft invents Kuro5hin!!!
Witness the consistent interface. Marvel at the dynamic threading. Be wowed by the stimulus to content generation.
Boy howdy, I am sure glad Microsoft is innovating here. I mean right now I could access news and discussions from any computer with a web browser. Now that Microsoft has laid its innovating hand on the problem, I'll only be able to get this from my MS Windows box. Thank heaven for Microsoft because I really enjoy having to set up my email account settings on my friends' computers.
I mean if it weren't for this "thinking out of the box" idea, communication might actually take a step forward. Whew! That was close! No one wants that.
Yes and those kiosk machines at cafes? What about at your friend's house? S/he has a computer with a news/email reader, but is it set up for you yet? Is it already to go with the next unread message?
No, this information should go on a server so that no matter where you go, you will have the same access to info. And it should have a login to differentiate your settings from other persons'. And it should be...like a web forum where interface and access are not dependent upon your location.
Email conversations don't mirror web forums. Web forums replicate email...or rather web forums replicate USENET. But USENET has its limitations -- namely that not all computers have a news reader. 99.999% of all networked computers have a web browser installed however.
Strongbad impersonation mode *on*
So just take your USENET groups and put a web interface on them so that everyone can use it. And...ummm...it would look like a web forum. And...ummm...people with a news reader could use it too except...ummm...the people with a news reader also have a browser. So...ummm...why not just have a web forum? ...stupid!
You know what would be really cool? Let's have a web forum where we can talk about how great it would be to reinvent the news reader...ummm...that we don't need and...ummm...that's what we're doing right now.
Ummm...yeah. Maybe...ummm...USENET is pointless except as a distributed backend for a web forum (which would be very cool). But...wouldn't that make this "new technology" obsolete before it even starts...err...is rehashed?
Oooooh! (devilish laugh) Wouldn't that be cool! It'd be like...ummm...IMAP with...ummm...sorting by thread...ummm...ummm...I think we've already got that...already...This crap is obviously neither good nor awesome. It is just...crap.
You can't click a wheel as a third button even after giving a little bit of training time? Methinks you have some hand coordination issues that far outweigh the need for a third button.
Then why have mouse manufacturers been shipping drivers that map the third button for years?
Does everyone use the third button? Of course not. There are many folks (novice Mac users) who use just one.
However, your rebuttal serves my point better than yours. The consumer population in general sees value in a wheel where they didn't see (as much) value in a third button. Whereas the third button never really took off (for whatever reasons), the wheels caused a huge influx of new mouse purchases. I think that speaks volumes.
In addition, even with a two-button mouse, you can click both buttons to simulate a third button (a chord): a single step. The alternative for mouses without a wheel (on OSes that support it), is to hit the third button to enable mouse scroll and again to turn it off: a two step process. When switching between apps/windows, one is better. Then again, with the wheel acting as a button, you have the best of both worlds.
Did she now? On a recall notice in a firefight, do you honestly believe that everyone turns their backs at once? Since they can't land all at the same time, it has to be staggered. Had Apollo's fighter not been seriously damaged, perhaps they would have been on schedule. You're faulting her for not immediately ditching her wingman.
As for Zack, I think it was clear that she felt more than her fair share of guilt about the subject. How would you take it if you were responsible for the death of your lover? Become a little numb? A little callous?
If you watch again, she doesn't take that type of risk all of the time. In the previous battle, she did her job and prevented two out of three missiles from hitting the Gallactica. In the final battle, rather than leaving a teammate behind, she risked her own life to save him. If her reputation is to take risks that ultimately save teammates, I can guarantee you that most folks would want her on the squad.
I never said they were the same. Okay, let me rephrase: You can click a wheel in place of a third button perfectly well. A large portion of the consumer population seems to agree with me.
Just because a scroll wheel can be used as a button does not mean that it's logical to have nothing but scroll wheels. You are trying to adapt the notion of ad absurdum, taking a particular facet of an argument to its most extreme case. This rarely works with engineering. For example, a suspension bridge may have three towers over the span. By your logic, because having twenty towers would be untenable, suspension bridges are foolish.
The fact that mouses come with buttons and wheels shows that they are not, in fact, the same. We are in agreement there. I am merely asserting the wheel mouses are largely superior in that button-only mouses lack the ability to scroll -- a very common activity for most of us with a GUI -- while wheel mouses can scroll in addition to performing all duties of the button-only mouse. Add to it that most individuals either don't use the third mouse button or, like me, did not find it to be such a vast hardship to hone the required hand/finger coordination to use both the third button feature and the wheel.
If three wheels were sufficiently easy to use (and a suitable usage were found), I'd advocate for them too. As it stands, I doubt that they would be. On the other hand, I do find single wheel mouses extremely easy to use.
Standard 3-button mouse or wheel mouse. And you want the standard 3-button? Hunh?
There's a reason they're not being sold as much. You can click a wheel perfectly well, but you can't scroll a button.
For the visuals. Queries can be made by dragging and dropping columns from tables. Table creation without learning SQL syntax is simple as well. For that alone, I would recommend Access. It makes it easy to teach the concepts before being mired in syntax cruft.
That said, I would recommend using Access as a frontend to a real database via ODBC. Then you have the ease of use and baby steps at the beginning as well as the power, seamless transition to better functionality, and (perhaps most important) the hint that Access should rarely be used on its own for all but the most trivial of projects.
He's definitely thinking about which way to go. More likely, he's trying to figure out how to make sure he doesn't get caught doing it -- choice of words/inflections matters here.
...while also stating that he "didn't do anything."
He says nothing until his name is called out. Only then does he tell the woman next to him the number and call it out to others.
Not to be heartless (well, maybe I am), but why would folks past a certain age go? I think back to movies like "Deep Impact" where the lottery specifically excluded individuals over the age of fifty unless they were already on the list of useful and important people.