While kind of hackish (it uses dia as its GUI), cool projects like tedia2sql make it easy to develop a single schema which works on 8 or 9 major RDMS, for free. It's even possible to generate customized triggers and/or schema sections on a per RDBMS basis.
I don't think it covers stored procedures. It has been a long time since I've used it, but regardless, considering stored procedures are often ignored, it may or may not be a factor for your next project.
If both products were starting from scratch, then yeah maybe PG would have a good shot. But MySQL isn't bad enough, and PG isn't better enough, to make me or others like me feel like switching.
And that's the problem. Because people don't try it, you don't realize how much better PostgreSQL really is. It really is more "better enough".;) Until you give it an honest try, you really don't realize what you're missing out on.
You're not quoting me. If you are paraphrasing me, you have taken what I said out of context. Either way, your an idiot. Seems your head is squarely stuck up your and you insist on pushing it further.
Expect no further reply because you have now proved to be a complete moron/troll.
The real question is which is worse the gas engine and all its byproducts or the electric and its byproducts.
That's a great question. I saw a report on TV not long ago which sought to address this question. The report attempted to look at all factors including costs and environmental impact associated with batteries and the additional electronics/motors, etc. According to the report, only two or maybe three hybrids in current production are actually improvements over ICE. Two of which are made by Toyota. I forget what the questionable third one was.
These top three were the only ones that even had reasonable returns on investments (difference paid for hybrid verses non-hybrid model or equivalent). The top three had a ROI somewhere around for or five years. After than it started falling off to nine or so years. Around the mid park the ROI was somewhere in the twenty year range. The worst, was a Lexus, which had a 99-year ROI.
Long story short, for the vast majority of hybrid cars, ignoring the cool-factor, most hybrids actually do nothing for the environment other than change where the environmental impact is taking place. And don't forget, the majority, overall are actually worse for the environment than best of breed ICEs.
Hopefully the cool-factor will be enough (and it looks like it is) to spur a second and third generation of development. Each generation looks to better for mileage, environment, and ROI.
What are you talking about? You are off topic and now trolling.
As you insist on being off topic and are now trolling I'll hammer home as to why you're clueless.
First of all, no one was talking about conventional subcompact cars. Only loosely was a comparison made, which indicated cars, including sub-compacts, which are safer than the vehicle actually being discussed. Period. This is why you are off topic so no myth is in discussion. You are completely off topic.
Second of all, had you pulled your head from your rear-end and bothered to re-read my post as requested, it would be clear that I was talking about new electric cars verses larger vehicles, to which your myth has nothing in common. Furthermore, had you bothered to use your brain, it would be very obvious that we are not talking about conventional cars, sub-compact or otherwise, since I clearly referred to the newer electric breed as, "glorified go carts" and even explained the trade offs. Glorified go carts does not describe a modern sub-compact car which is powered by an ICE.
So, please take your trolling and uninformed post and shove it up your rear. The only alert readers should be aware of, is the fact that you've posted.
If these do take off, don't expect "pump time" charging as the power simply can't be supplied that fast from existing infrastructure.
Two things: 1. I don't think he was referring to home charging. I think he meant getting juice at a service station. People don't "charge" their gasoline cars at home, after all. A service station could be hooked up to an industrial-grade electrical line. 2. A bank of super capacitors at home could "trickle charge" and simply hold it until the car is ready to be charged quickly.
#2 is an excellent point but #1 doesn't matter. Save only but for heavy industry, the power to charge at pump speeds is simply not available without significant infrastructure enhancements. It's not realistic to even expect charge stations to have such power available unless they are within an industrial part of the city. Furthermore, if you are now talking about centralized charging stations, the infrastructure requirements go up considerably. It's the same problem of a different scale so the point still stands.
As for #2, you are correct that it makes the most sense. The real question is, what does this look like for multi-car homes. Around here, it's common to see 2-5 vehicles per home which accounts for full size families. I guess a combination of both home and station charging (plus perhaps work?) will likely be the picture of tomorrow. Regardless, plugging in tomorrow without significant changes to infrastructure in some form is unlikely.
I wonder what this will look like for peak loads as everyone is now charging their caps during the day (your're gone remember) and quick charging at night and/or backfilling their caps again.
You're the only one talking myths here. Please get back on topic. No one is talking about sub-compact ICE-powered vehicles (other than they are safer than the topic at hand), which is what your myth is about. Please re-read my post and you'll find that you've taken a wrong turn.
The safest cars are the ones that can dodge an accident, rather than plow through some obstacle and hope to survive due to sheer mass.
Which is very a very flawed way of thinking. In the US, most drivers are already distracted. The number one type of accident in the US is rear ending. You seem to advocate that a driver in front must evade the driver to his rear, but they must now constantly watch a 360' view, while distracted. Not realistic in the least.
In reality, passive protection is the only form of protection which reliably works. As a counter point, motorcycle accidents are frequent here and all studies cite smaller vehicles are more difficult for other drivers to estimate distance. This is one of the classic causes of vehicle-motorcycle accidents in the US. That is, the vehicle pulls out, cutting off the motorcycle rider. This normally results in two types of collisions; one, the cycle t-bones the car, two, the rider slides and/or falls off the bike, sometimes resulting in a nasty bike-rider mess which comes to a sudden stop against the vehicle. Either way, it's bad results for the rider.
Perhaps once riders get used to seeing small vehicles and cycles on the roads this will change, until then, passive protection is far and away the best protection drivers have today in the US.
Electricity is cheaper to produce than getting gas into your tank. Sure, you electric bill will go up but net cost is still less than your current electric bill plus gas. Last I heard, the difference is a fraction of what you currently pay to keep gas in your car. Don't forget that the efficiency of electrical distribution is far greater than ICE are currently capable.
Super Capacitors are supposed to change that by allowing charge times equivalent or less than the time spent at the petrol pump.
They will not become feasible until a charging infrastructure becomes available. Most homes can't charge one of these things, at "pump speeds", even while taking the power feed directly into the home. Now imagine a whole neighborhood trying to charge their vehicles. It's impossible unless billions and billions are spent creating a entirely new electrical infrastructure.
If these do take off, don't expect "pump time" charging as the power simply can't be supplied that fast from existing infrastructure.
Of course, this leaves out difference in conversion efficiency of gas v.s. electricity.
That is a pretty big glossing over of the realities, especially since the efficiency of a gasoline powered ICE is around 18% - not including additional losses in the transmission.
Last I heard, total efficiency at the wheel, on average, is closer to 8%-9%. I have no idea if that's correct but is sounds about right.
The problem with those is they need a lot more development to become reality. They are so small they need excellent front, rear, and side impact protection; likely far exceeding anything in current production vehicles. The fact of the matter is, SUVs, trucks, and semis are still on the road. The problem with these vehicles is most are nothing but glorified go carts whereby one becomes a future organ donor the second they accept their key. Let's face it, most of the current generation electric cars are able to get by using tiny electric motors because they give up lots of weight which is currently preserved in ICE-powered vehicles. Often, once you add safety parity, your acceleration and range become significantly reduced - not to mention, cost tends to go through the roof.
This is very common in the US. Most in the US consider a work week 40-hours but in the tech industry, the norm is somewhere between 60-80 hours, depending on the company and type of work.
This has gotten worse since Bush passed law stating that most in the tech industry no longer quality for overtime. Industry took this to mean they no longer have workers but rather slaves. This is further re-enforced by outsourcing looming over more and more heads in the tech industry.
If you stop and think about it, this means companies are able to reduce their labor costs by 1/2 to 1/4 and if costs are still out of line, they can simply outsource to save money while realizing a lower overall quality on return with little to no recourse for the industry population. Furthermore, companies have every reason to continue this poor practice which drives down the overall value of skill and expertise, which in some cases rivals or exceeds that required for M.D. Remember, no other industry changes as quickly as the tech industry.
You can bet your last dollar that if this trend happens to M.D.s and especially the legal profession (outsourcing - which is starting to happen), things will change. And yes, the crying has already started - which has started to get congressional attention. Of course they will change at a must slower pace as overtime is a central billing theme for both of these professions. You can bet if overtime was prohibited for doctors and lawyers, the country would likely revolt almost overnight about how unfair this is.
And, if someone installs a wind generator, and someone else installs solar, then they are likely to have excess power at different times.
Not likely. Wind is a form of thermal energy. Wind is generated from the uneven heating and cooling of the earth. This is why wind typically picks up by mid morning to late afternoon, which is also peak production for solar.
Of course, wind can generate power at night when simple solar panels can't (yes, some types of solar power can generate power at night), but peak generation for wind typically overlaps with peak solar generation too. Perhaps that's what you meant? That is, despite the peak overlaps, wind is more likely to generate power during the "dark" hours?
A problem with that is that the utility company/electric company, only needs the excess power during peak times. In non peak, they already have excess capacity to meet any sudden demands. Off peak power is always cheaper because there are long term contracts but peak power is more expensive because it is sold only in supplemental amounts.
Don't forget that solar provides peak power during peak demand hours so selling back makes a whole lot of sense. Furthermore, if enough people are reselling their power this means the net price for power during peak periods can be reduced. This has the effect of reducing the net return and actually drives prices down for all consumers.
Just because the current system is broken doesn't mean it's a bad idea to support whole sale pricing from customers back to industry.
In the long run this actually saves everyone money as it reduces the need to build new infrastructure. Furthermore, as infrastructure is built to satisfy peak demands, the grid can actually grow, satisfying peak demand, so long as new solar customers continue to come on to the grid. This means that the huge dollar figures which would otherwise be spent to create new plants can be deferred until off-peak loads become a factor.
Now let's say you have one of these Generals in Washington, and they need to go to Iraq.
How do you get them there?
Do they fly commercial? Probably not very regular commercial service from DC to Baghdad.
I gave up mod points to reply here. I hate to tell ya, but most troops fly commercially in and out of Iraq. The reason so many troops (the vast majority) fly commercially is because it costs the military about 4x the cost per seat to do the same trip in their own planes.
Unless they are a high level cabinet member flying in high profile, there is no excuse for them to fly on anything other than a commercial jet, just as everyone else does.
I just wanted to separate that quote out from the rest, so that I could marvel at the pureness of its stupidity.
I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh. Wow! Your comment is staggering. Seriously, your comments speaks volumes about you. So according to your um, "unique logic", an application which is difficult to install lacks technical capability. Likewise, the inverse is also true; applications which are easy to install have every technical capability. To be absolutely clear, your position is ease of installation is proportional to technical capability.
Applying your charming logic to other domains, houses which are difficult to build make for extremely poor houses. I'm sure ever mansion owner in the world agrees with your um, logic. I'm sure the military agrees with you on plane building too. Shesh. Wait...waiting...that's a good laugh. Hehehe. That's funny. That's some great insight you have there! Please, tell us more.
Considering they are completely orthogonal concepts yet you insist they are closely related, it is completely obvious why you can't grasp simple concepts. It's obvious why you like MySQL.
For everyone's sake, it best that you endorse MySQL so people wake up and begin to distance themselves from both you and that product. So please, loudly continue to voice your pearls of wisdom for all to hear so we all understand MySQL as the best RDMBS in the world.
That's too funny but I'm sure you won't see the humor. Trust me, normal people thank you're funny...very...
Look at the alternatives and you'll soon find that you are likely spending more time and learning poor SQL habits to work around MySQL's SQL limitations.
So while MySQL may do what you need it to do, it likely is doing it poorly and you just don't have enough experience to realize it. Seriously, pick one of the many alternative solutions and take some time to take a look at it. Very likely, if you approach it with an open mind, you'll find yourself saying, "cool, I can use that!", as you examine features which are simply unavailable to MySQL databse users. Or heck, you might just do some reading to discover just how poor MySQL actually protects your data; from the mouths of MySQL core developers. No joke.
My personal preference is PostgreSQL. Many other solid options exist.
Please, do yourself a favor and take a look at what other people are raving about. It won't take too much effort to realize just how limited and unprotected your data really is when using MySQL.
Ask yourself, is you data important? Ask yourself, is your time important? Ask yourself, is scalability important? If you answered, "yes" to any one of those questions, you are likely far better off with a database solution other than MySQL.
If you take the time to look at some of your options, I feel very strongly you'll soon be thanking yourself.
Two of the most important characteristics software can have are ease of installation and ease of use.
Which is not topical in the least. If you bothered to follow the thread it would be completely obvious. Lots and lots of fish lovers here. Even if it were topical, and it's not in the least, difficulty of installation from 5+ years ago, assuming you are attempting to Win32-PostgreSQL bash, which has long been addressed, is simply not a factor. Ease of installation on Unix/Linux platforms has always been easy.
To be absolutely clear, installation has ZERO to do with technical capabilities and lack of ANSI compliance, which are the sole reasons knowledgeable people dislike MySQL. This has been made very clear in several posts in this thread.
If on the other and, MySQL users truly believe installation is the sole reason they are stuck using an inferior product, then you guys need only do a couple of mouse clicks to be educated. MySQL is far from being the only easy to install, freely available RDBMS. If this is really the case, MySQL users come off even more irrational and ignorant than even. As this is unlikely to be the case and installation issues are not a concern when contrasting the competition, there does not exist a valid reason to mention the topic again unless one wishes prove they are unworthy to even discuss the topic at hand by hammering home one's lack of comprehension skills.
Go bother to learn more on the topic. The MySQL that Google uses has nothing in common with what you use because they have their own back-ends (plural) for it.
Google is in a position to fully understand the vast limitations and short comings of MySQL; which they have mitigated by using their own custom-purposed back-ends. But hey, I'm sure things like facts won't deter you.
In the grand scheme of things, no one cares if a blog entry is lost. Does that mean MySQL is a good database? Hardly. It actually means, for their purpose, it is one of the easiest databases to swap out back-ends on to satisfy custom requirements; albeit with understood limitations. And for those uses where they choose not to use a custom back-end, they obviously decided the data is simply not important enough to care.
You're hostile attitude clearly implies the original comments squarely hit home. I strongly suggest you learn more about what is available. Many, many, many freely available and superior options exist. Next, try to learn and use them; or one of them. Once you've done so for real applications, you'll quickly laugh at your comments and pat your self on your back that you allowed yourself to grow. That may sound nasty, but it's true.
Ultimately, your decision to use MySQL is very simple. You can make that decision by asking three simple questions. Is YOUR data important? If the answer is yes, then you should not be using MySQL. There exists no shortage of technical reasons, which are widely documented, to support this factual statement. Most reasons are provided in almost all MySQL threads.
Next, is YOUR time valuable? If the answer is yes, then you should not be using MySQL. There exists no shortage of technical reasons, which are widely documented, to support this factual statement. Most reasons are provided in almost all MySQL threads.
Next, is scalability important to YOU? If the answer is yes, then you should not be using MySQL. There exists no shortage of technical reasons, which are widely documented, to support this factual statement. Most reasons are provided in almost all MySQL threads.
Now then, if you insist of using MySQL, by all means, do so. But your decision to use MySQL doesn't change the fact that better solutions exist.
Before you reply, please read the various postings here and other anti-MySQL postings. You'll find, with little effort, the details I purposely left off in my above retort.
We seem to be chasing tails here. If you must have application X and equivalence for X with another database can not be found, then by process of elimination, you have no choice.
Slashdot Mirror
While kind of hackish (it uses dia as its GUI), cool projects like tedia2sql make it easy to develop a single schema which works on 8 or 9 major RDMS, for free. It's even possible to generate customized triggers and/or schema sections on a per RDBMS basis.
I don't think it covers stored procedures. It has been a long time since I've used it, but regardless, considering stored procedures are often ignored, it may or may not be a factor for your next project.
If both products were starting from scratch, then yeah maybe PG would have a good shot. But MySQL isn't bad enough, and PG isn't better enough, to make me or others like me feel like switching.
And that's the problem. Because people don't try it, you don't realize how much better PostgreSQL really is. It really is more "better enough". ;) Until you give it an honest try, you really don't realize what you're missing out on.
You're not quoting me. If you are paraphrasing me, you have taken what I said out of context. Either way, your an idiot. Seems your head is squarely stuck up your and you insist on pushing it further.
Expect no further reply because you have now proved to be a complete moron/troll.
The real question is which is worse the gas engine and all its byproducts or the electric and its byproducts.
That's a great question. I saw a report on TV not long ago which sought to address this question. The report attempted to look at all factors including costs and environmental impact associated with batteries and the additional electronics/motors, etc. According to the report, only two or maybe three hybrids in current production are actually improvements over ICE. Two of which are made by Toyota. I forget what the questionable third one was.
These top three were the only ones that even had reasonable returns on investments (difference paid for hybrid verses non-hybrid model or equivalent). The top three had a ROI somewhere around for or five years. After than it started falling off to nine or so years. Around the mid park the ROI was somewhere in the twenty year range. The worst, was a Lexus, which had a 99-year ROI.
Long story short, for the vast majority of hybrid cars, ignoring the cool-factor, most hybrids actually do nothing for the environment other than change where the environmental impact is taking place. And don't forget, the majority, overall are actually worse for the environment than best of breed ICEs.
Hopefully the cool-factor will be enough (and it looks like it is) to spur a second and third generation of development. Each generation looks to better for mileage, environment, and ROI.
A 50AMP circuit should be able to charge a car in a few hours, without the need for the bank of capacitors.
I agree, but the original point was to use the super caps to charge in five minutes or less. Five minutes is a far cry from hours.
I think we're full circle now. ;)
What are you talking about? You are off topic and now trolling.
As you insist on being off topic and are now trolling I'll hammer home as to why you're clueless.
First of all, no one was talking about conventional subcompact cars. Only loosely was a comparison made, which indicated cars, including sub-compacts, which are safer than the vehicle actually being discussed. Period. This is why you are off topic so no myth is in discussion. You are completely off topic.
Second of all, had you pulled your head from your rear-end and bothered to re-read my post as requested, it would be clear that I was talking about new electric cars verses larger vehicles, to which your myth has nothing in common. Furthermore, had you bothered to use your brain, it would be very obvious that we are not talking about conventional cars, sub-compact or otherwise, since I clearly referred to the newer electric breed as, "glorified go carts" and even explained the trade offs. Glorified go carts does not describe a modern sub-compact car which is powered by an ICE.
So, please take your trolling and uninformed post and shove it up your rear. The only alert readers should be aware of, is the fact that you've posted.
If these do take off, don't expect "pump time" charging as the power simply can't be supplied that fast from existing infrastructure.
Two things:
1. I don't think he was referring to home charging. I think he meant getting juice at a service station. People don't "charge" their gasoline cars at home, after all. A service station could be hooked up to an industrial-grade electrical line.
2. A bank of super capacitors at home could "trickle charge" and simply hold it until the car is ready to be charged quickly.
#2 is an excellent point but #1 doesn't matter. Save only but for heavy industry, the power to charge at pump speeds is simply not available without significant infrastructure enhancements. It's not realistic to even expect charge stations to have such power available unless they are within an industrial part of the city. Furthermore, if you are now talking about centralized charging stations, the infrastructure requirements go up considerably. It's the same problem of a different scale so the point still stands.
As for #2, you are correct that it makes the most sense. The real question is, what does this look like for multi-car homes. Around here, it's common to see 2-5 vehicles per home which accounts for full size families. I guess a combination of both home and station charging (plus perhaps work?) will likely be the picture of tomorrow. Regardless, plugging in tomorrow without significant changes to infrastructure in some form is unlikely.
I wonder what this will look like for peak loads as everyone is now charging their caps during the day (your're gone remember) and quick charging at night and/or backfilling their caps again.
That is an often quoted myth.
You're the only one talking myths here. Please get back on topic. No one is talking about sub-compact ICE-powered vehicles (other than they are safer than the topic at hand), which is what your myth is about. Please re-read my post and you'll find that you've taken a wrong turn.
The safest cars are the ones that can dodge an accident, rather than plow through some obstacle and hope to survive due to sheer mass.
Which is very a very flawed way of thinking. In the US, most drivers are already distracted. The number one type of accident in the US is rear ending. You seem to advocate that a driver in front must evade the driver to his rear, but they must now constantly watch a 360' view, while distracted. Not realistic in the least.
In reality, passive protection is the only form of protection which reliably works. As a counter point, motorcycle accidents are frequent here and all studies cite smaller vehicles are more difficult for other drivers to estimate distance. This is one of the classic causes of vehicle-motorcycle accidents in the US. That is, the vehicle pulls out, cutting off the motorcycle rider. This normally results in two types of collisions; one, the cycle t-bones the car, two, the rider slides and/or falls off the bike, sometimes resulting in a nasty bike-rider mess which comes to a sudden stop against the vehicle. Either way, it's bad results for the rider.
Perhaps once riders get used to seeing small vehicles and cycles on the roads this will change, until then, passive protection is far and away the best protection drivers have today in the US.
+1 Insightful
+1 Interesting
+1 Funny
Wow!
Electricity is cheaper to produce than getting gas into your tank. Sure, you electric bill will go up but net cost is still less than your current electric bill plus gas. Last I heard, the difference is a fraction of what you currently pay to keep gas in your car. Don't forget that the efficiency of electrical distribution is far greater than ICE are currently capable.
Super Capacitors are supposed to change that by allowing charge times equivalent or less than the time spent at the petrol pump.
They will not become feasible until a charging infrastructure becomes available. Most homes can't charge one of these things, at "pump speeds", even while taking the power feed directly into the home. Now imagine a whole neighborhood trying to charge their vehicles. It's impossible unless billions and billions are spent creating a entirely new electrical infrastructure.
If these do take off, don't expect "pump time" charging as the power simply can't be supplied that fast from existing infrastructure.
That is a pretty big glossing over of the realities, especially since the efficiency of a gasoline powered ICE is around 18% - not including additional losses in the transmission.
Last I heard, total efficiency at the wheel, on average, is closer to 8%-9%. I have no idea if that's correct but is sounds about right.
The problem with those is they need a lot more development to become reality. They are so small they need excellent front, rear, and side impact protection; likely far exceeding anything in current production vehicles. The fact of the matter is, SUVs, trucks, and semis are still on the road. The problem with these vehicles is most are nothing but glorified go carts whereby one becomes a future organ donor the second they accept their key. Let's face it, most of the current generation electric cars are able to get by using tiny electric motors because they give up lots of weight which is currently preserved in ICE-powered vehicles. Often, once you add safety parity, your acceleration and range become significantly reduced - not to mention, cost tends to go through the roof.
One solution to Venus maybe to engineer a way to deal with its overall chemistry rather than trying to endure its current state.
One gigantic box of baking soda to the rescue. ;)
This is very common in the US. Most in the US consider a work week 40-hours but in the tech industry, the norm is somewhere between 60-80 hours, depending on the company and type of work.
This has gotten worse since Bush passed law stating that most in the tech industry no longer quality for overtime. Industry took this to mean they no longer have workers but rather slaves. This is further re-enforced by outsourcing looming over more and more heads in the tech industry.
If you stop and think about it, this means companies are able to reduce their labor costs by 1/2 to 1/4 and if costs are still out of line, they can simply outsource to save money while realizing a lower overall quality on return with little to no recourse for the industry population. Furthermore, companies have every reason to continue this poor practice which drives down the overall value of skill and expertise, which in some cases rivals or exceeds that required for M.D. Remember, no other industry changes as quickly as the tech industry.
You can bet your last dollar that if this trend happens to M.D.s and especially the legal profession (outsourcing - which is starting to happen), things will change. And yes, the crying has already started - which has started to get congressional attention. Of course they will change at a must slower pace as overtime is a central billing theme for both of these professions. You can bet if overtime was prohibited for doctors and lawyers, the country would likely revolt almost overnight about how unfair this is.
And, if someone installs a wind generator, and someone else installs solar, then they are likely to have excess power at different times.
Not likely. Wind is a form of thermal energy. Wind is generated from the uneven heating and cooling of the earth. This is why wind typically picks up by mid morning to late afternoon, which is also peak production for solar.
Of course, wind can generate power at night when simple solar panels can't (yes, some types of solar power can generate power at night), but peak generation for wind typically overlaps with peak solar generation too. Perhaps that's what you meant? That is, despite the peak overlaps, wind is more likely to generate power during the "dark" hours?
A problem with that is that the utility company/electric company, only needs the excess power during peak times. In non peak, they already have excess capacity to meet any sudden demands. Off peak power is always cheaper because there are long term contracts but peak power is more expensive because it is sold only in supplemental amounts.
Don't forget that solar provides peak power during peak demand hours so selling back makes a whole lot of sense. Furthermore, if enough people are reselling their power this means the net price for power during peak periods can be reduced. This has the effect of reducing the net return and actually drives prices down for all consumers.
Just because the current system is broken doesn't mean it's a bad idea to support whole sale pricing from customers back to industry.
In the long run this actually saves everyone money as it reduces the need to build new infrastructure. Furthermore, as infrastructure is built to satisfy peak demands, the grid can actually grow, satisfying peak demand, so long as new solar customers continue to come on to the grid. This means that the huge dollar figures which would otherwise be spent to create new plants can be deferred until off-peak loads become a factor.
The point still stands so I'm hardly wrong. The last mile doesn't matter.
Now let's say you have one of these Generals in Washington, and they need to go to Iraq.
How do you get them there?
Do they fly commercial? Probably not very regular commercial service from DC to Baghdad.
I gave up mod points to reply here. I hate to tell ya, but most troops fly commercially in and out of Iraq. The reason so many troops (the vast majority) fly commercially is because it costs the military about 4x the cost per seat to do the same trip in their own planes.
Unless they are a high level cabinet member flying in high profile, there is no excuse for them to fly on anything other than a commercial jet, just as everyone else does.
I just wanted to separate that quote out from the rest, so that I could marvel at the pureness of its stupidity.
I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh. Wow! Your comment is staggering. Seriously, your comments speaks volumes about you. So according to your um, "unique logic", an application which is difficult to install lacks technical capability. Likewise, the inverse is also true; applications which are easy to install have every technical capability. To be absolutely clear, your position is ease of installation is proportional to technical capability.
Applying your charming logic to other domains, houses which are difficult to build make for extremely poor houses. I'm sure ever mansion owner in the world agrees with your um, logic. I'm sure the military agrees with you on plane building too. Shesh. Wait...waiting...that's a good laugh. Hehehe. That's funny. That's some great insight you have there! Please, tell us more.
Considering they are completely orthogonal concepts yet you insist they are closely related, it is completely obvious why you can't grasp simple concepts. It's obvious why you like MySQL.
For everyone's sake, it best that you endorse MySQL so people wake up and begin to distance themselves from both you and that product. So please, loudly continue to voice your pearls of wisdom for all to hear so we all understand MySQL as the best RDMBS in the world.
That's too funny but I'm sure you won't see the humor. Trust me, normal people thank you're funny...very...
I use MySQL and it does what I need it to do.
Look at the alternatives and you'll soon find that you are likely spending more time and learning poor SQL habits to work around MySQL's SQL limitations.
So while MySQL may do what you need it to do, it likely is doing it poorly and you just don't have enough experience to realize it. Seriously, pick one of the many alternative solutions and take some time to take a look at it. Very likely, if you approach it with an open mind, you'll find yourself saying, "cool, I can use that!", as you examine features which are simply unavailable to MySQL databse users. Or heck, you might just do some reading to discover just how poor MySQL actually protects your data; from the mouths of MySQL core developers. No joke.
My personal preference is PostgreSQL. Many other solid options exist.
Please, do yourself a favor and take a look at what other people are raving about. It won't take too much effort to realize just how limited and unprotected your data really is when using MySQL.
Ask yourself, is you data important? Ask yourself, is your time important? Ask yourself, is scalability important? If you answered, "yes" to any one of those questions, you are likely far better off with a database solution other than MySQL.
If you take the time to look at some of your options, I feel very strongly you'll soon be thanking yourself.
Two of the most important characteristics software can have are ease of installation and ease of use.
Which is not topical in the least. If you bothered to follow the thread it would be completely obvious. Lots and lots of fish lovers here. Even if it were topical, and it's not in the least, difficulty of installation from 5+ years ago, assuming you are attempting to Win32-PostgreSQL bash, which has long been addressed, is simply not a factor. Ease of installation on Unix/Linux platforms has always been easy.
To be absolutely clear, installation has ZERO to do with technical capabilities and lack of ANSI compliance, which are the sole reasons knowledgeable people dislike MySQL. This has been made very clear in several posts in this thread.
If on the other and, MySQL users truly believe installation is the sole reason they are stuck using an inferior product, then you guys need only do a couple of mouse clicks to be educated. MySQL is far from being the only easy to install, freely available RDBMS. If this is really the case, MySQL users come off even more irrational and ignorant than even. As this is unlikely to be the case and installation issues are not a concern when contrasting the competition, there does not exist a valid reason to mention the topic again unless one wishes prove they are unworthy to even discuss the topic at hand by hammering home one's lack of comprehension skills.
Go bother to learn more on the topic. The MySQL that Google uses has nothing in common with what you use because they have their own back-ends (plural) for it.
Google is in a position to fully understand the vast limitations and short comings of MySQL; which they have mitigated by using their own custom-purposed back-ends. But hey, I'm sure things like facts won't deter you.
In the grand scheme of things, no one cares if a blog entry is lost. Does that mean MySQL is a good database? Hardly. It actually means, for their purpose, it is one of the easiest databases to swap out back-ends on to satisfy custom requirements; albeit with understood limitations. And for those uses where they choose not to use a custom back-end, they obviously decided the data is simply not important enough to care.
You're hostile attitude clearly implies the original comments squarely hit home. I strongly suggest you learn more about what is available. Many, many, many freely available and superior options exist. Next, try to learn and use them; or one of them. Once you've done so for real applications, you'll quickly laugh at your comments and pat your self on your back that you allowed yourself to grow. That may sound nasty, but it's true.
Ultimately, your decision to use MySQL is very simple. You can make that decision by asking three simple questions. Is YOUR data important? If the answer is yes, then you should not be using MySQL. There exists no shortage of technical reasons, which are widely documented, to support this factual statement. Most reasons are provided in almost all MySQL threads.
Next, is YOUR time valuable? If the answer is yes, then you should not be using MySQL. There exists no shortage of technical reasons, which are widely documented, to support this factual statement. Most reasons are provided in almost all MySQL threads.
Next, is scalability important to YOU? If the answer is yes, then you should not be using MySQL. There exists no shortage of technical reasons, which are widely documented, to support this factual statement. Most reasons are provided in almost all MySQL threads.
Now then, if you insist of using MySQL, by all means, do so. But your decision to use MySQL doesn't change the fact that better solutions exist.
Before you reply, please read the various postings here and other anti-MySQL postings. You'll find, with little effort, the details I purposely left off in my above retort.
We seem to be chasing tails here. If you must have application X and equivalence for X with another database can not be found, then by process of elimination, you have no choice.