Let me explain: "FileMaker is coming out with version 7, which is going to require us to tear all our databases to pieces and build them up again from scratch.
No, it doesn't if you don't want to. You can just convert, but you won't take advantage of more than the software performance/structure benifits, until you actually change how your databases are built.
While the new FileMaker is an improvement, it's still a toy as far as "real" databases go. (The latest update just introduced relational tables, for example) At about this point I'm wondering what version of FMP you're using right now. It has to be pre 3.0, because that's when FileMaker went relational. Well over 10 years ago. I wouldn't consider it a toy at all. I would consider Access a toy compared to FMP7 (Not that Access sucks, quite the opposite, it's just that FMP7 has far far more capabilities than you seem to be giving it credit for)
Also, data lock-in is becoming a problem; I'd like to have access to all our data from non-FileMaker interfaces (to populate our LDAP directory, for example). While we can work an export from FileMaker, it would be much better if the data were available in an open, standard database instead.
Like ODBC? XML? JDBC? XML/XSLT (For.NET). Yeah, all that's currently available in FMP7. ODBC, XML, and JDBC has been available in FM since version 4.1 (ODBC), 5.0 (XML/JDBC). I can only conclude you have a pre-4.0 version, and since you don't use relationships, a pre-3.0 version. Blaming a 10+ year old piece of software for the shortfalls of modern technology is being unreasonable.
I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of your article. You act as if FileMaker is the worst database program in the world, and has no scaleability (Not true, filesizes are at 4+Terrabytes, with 1GB of text per field, per record, with indexing services that scale perfectly fine whether you're at 40kb, or 3.5 terrabytes worth of data.). So my only conclusion is that you just flat out don't care to learn the benifits or functionality of using all the capabilities of FileMaker. That's fine, but don't poison the slashdotters minds with your lie based propaganda.
If you really want to start learning FMP7 and what it's capable of, check out some of the tech articles on the support section of the www.filemaker.com website. They should give you the general overviews of what you're missing, and the details are in a pretty robust help system within the application (Or server disk).
Because of the subject matter they lied on I find it surprising. In any of the ones mentioned above, the truthful information was hard to come by, and in debate.
However, there's nothing hard to come by for this response. Anyone who's messed with any database in the world knows that they're lying through their teeth. It doesn't take a grand jury to prove that.
And I assume you worked for a company that did all this for free like our government is expected to?
That's the misconception. They're not doing it for free. We are paying them to do it. We are paying taxes on money earned, we are paying taxes on money spent, we are paying taxes on living in a state. We are paying for these government offices to exist. Without taxpayers money, the DoJ wouldn't even exist.
Therefore they're not doing it for free. It is their job, to mitigate the requests of the public, as long as that information is deemed public.
Were it confidential information, I would completely accept this response. But electronic data doesn't cost anything. They're not going to the library and asking for them to make a copy of something for $.05. There's no paper. It's all electronic. And to use the unrealistic excuse that the "Database" would crash and data would be forever lost as the only line of reasoning...is simply poor form.
I can't beleive they'd lie this blatantly. Even Exporting the information in their database wouldn't cause a crash. If that were the case, they wouldn't be able to perform a search in the databases as exporting generally uses the same indexing methods for queries.
This was a horrible response. I mean, if they stated that the 4,000 hampsters who power the DOJ mainframes, can't move their wheels fast enough to export the data, it would have been far more plausible than this rediculous answer taken from the ID-ten-T book of computer phrases.
The AMD 64's, or this new Pentium M? Or heck, for that matter, what do you guys think is better right now for building a system from scratch, the AMD 2GHz (Albeit more performance per MHZ rating) or the Pentium 4 3+ghz CPU's.
How much of a difference is there for high end gaming, and did all the extra MHZ really mean anything on the P4s?
RIAA is just like every other corperation trying to censor something they can't control. They can't control the flow of data, and if they look through ISP logs to find.mp3's which were traded around, I'll encode/encrypt them in any format/algorithm to get around it. Screw the RIAA. I'd rather pay $.50 for a song and have 45 of that 50 cents go to the artist. Record labels/enforcers are going to be out of a job when musicians learn how to set up their own, much cheaper, rate of selling their songs to the public. Record companies will be a thing of the past. And you won't need millions of capital to start up a mainstream band/get signed. You just need access to a web and a method to get the music to the fans. This is why I liked mp3.com. If they could incorperate that into a donation method, or sampleing method then have the artist themselves sell the song on it, while making a small, 1-3% contribution to the site for offering the service, both parties would be inevitably rich and the record companies would be SOL.
Excel isn't really a database, it's a spreadsheet, but this is a bit closer. The problem with just porting it over to Linux is Microsoft gained control of a little piece more of the competitive OS.
Can't keep porting crap over to Linux, have to build a better version of it which can convert MS app files/documents, and force Microsoft to keep up with the changes. Without the dedicated development team MS has, it would be difficult though to make consistant and coordinated changes to a program like that. Anyhow, I'm not too happy with this port. Linux is looking more like MS Linux.
Seriously, if it's as good as everyone says, and the architechture is better, and it runs smoother, and faster, what would be the downturn of this move?
Slashdot Mirror
Let me explain:
.NET). Yeah, all that's currently available in FMP7. ODBC, XML, and JDBC has been available in FM since version 4.1 (ODBC), 5.0 (XML/JDBC). I can only conclude you have a pre-4.0 version, and since you don't use relationships, a pre-3.0 version. Blaming a 10+ year old piece of software for the shortfalls of modern technology is being unreasonable.
"FileMaker is coming out with version 7, which is going to require us to tear all our databases to pieces and build them up again from scratch.
No, it doesn't if you don't want to. You can just convert, but you won't take advantage of more than the software performance/structure benifits, until you actually change how your databases are built.
While the new FileMaker is an improvement, it's still a toy as far as "real" databases go. (The latest update just introduced relational tables, for example)
At about this point I'm wondering what version of FMP you're using right now. It has to be pre 3.0, because that's when FileMaker went relational. Well over 10 years ago. I wouldn't consider it a toy at all. I would consider Access a toy compared to FMP7 (Not that Access sucks, quite the opposite, it's just that FMP7 has far far more capabilities than you seem to be giving it credit for)
Also, data lock-in is becoming a problem; I'd like to have access to all our data from non-FileMaker interfaces (to populate our LDAP directory, for example). While we can work an export from FileMaker, it would be much better if the data were available in an open, standard database instead.
Like ODBC? XML? JDBC? XML/XSLT (For
I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of your article. You act as if FileMaker is the worst database program in the world, and has no scaleability (Not true, filesizes are at 4+Terrabytes, with 1GB of text per field, per record, with indexing services that scale perfectly fine whether you're at 40kb, or 3.5 terrabytes worth of data.). So my only conclusion is that you just flat out don't care to learn the benifits or functionality of using all the capabilities of FileMaker. That's fine, but don't poison the slashdotters minds with your lie based propaganda.
If you really want to start learning FMP7 and what it's capable of, check out some of the tech articles on the support section of the www.filemaker.com website. They should give you the general overviews of what you're missing, and the details are in a pretty robust help system within the application (Or server disk).
Because of the subject matter they lied on I find it surprising. In any of the ones mentioned above, the truthful information was hard to come by, and in debate.
However, there's nothing hard to come by for this response. Anyone who's messed with any database in the world knows that they're lying through their teeth. It doesn't take a grand jury to prove that.
And I assume you worked for a company that did all this for free like our government is expected to?
That's the misconception. They're not doing it for free. We are paying them to do it. We are paying taxes on money earned, we are paying taxes on money spent, we are paying taxes on living in a state. We are paying for these government offices to exist. Without taxpayers money, the DoJ wouldn't even exist.
Therefore they're not doing it for free. It is their job, to mitigate the requests of the public, as long as that information is deemed public.
Were it confidential information, I would completely accept this response. But electronic data doesn't cost anything. They're not going to the library and asking for them to make a copy of something for $.05. There's no paper. It's all electronic. And to use the unrealistic excuse that the "Database" would crash and data would be forever lost as the only line of reasoning...is simply poor form.
Yes, you apparently are. I don't agree with you in the slightest, and I'm a long time DBA.
I would do it for free. Exporting the nessasary information would take half an hour, at the most, if it was a complex series of requirements/fields.
I can't beleive they'd lie this blatantly. Even Exporting the information in their database wouldn't cause a crash. If that were the case, they wouldn't be able to perform a search in the databases as exporting generally uses the same indexing methods for queries. This was a horrible response. I mean, if they stated that the 4,000 hampsters who power the DOJ mainframes, can't move their wheels fast enough to export the data, it would have been far more plausible than this rediculous answer taken from the ID-ten-T book of computer phrases.
The AMD 64's, or this new Pentium M? Or heck, for that matter, what do you guys think is better right now for building a system from scratch, the AMD 2GHz (Albeit more performance per MHZ rating) or the Pentium 4 3+ghz CPU's. How much of a difference is there for high end gaming, and did all the extra MHZ really mean anything on the P4s?
RIAA is just like every other corperation trying to censor something they can't control. They can't control the flow of data, and if they look through ISP logs to find .mp3's which were traded around, I'll encode/encrypt them in any format/algorithm to get around it. Screw the RIAA. I'd rather pay $.50 for a song and have 45 of that 50 cents go to the artist.
Record labels/enforcers are going to be out of a job when musicians learn how to set up their own, much cheaper, rate of selling their songs to the public.
Record companies will be a thing of the past. And you won't need millions of capital to start up a mainstream band/get signed. You just need access to a web and a method to get the music to the fans. This is why I liked mp3.com. If they could incorperate that into a donation method, or sampleing method then have the artist themselves sell the song on it, while making a small, 1-3% contribution to the site for offering the service, both parties would be inevitably rich and the record companies would be SOL.
Excel isn't really a database, it's a spreadsheet, but this is a bit closer. The problem with just porting it over to Linux is Microsoft gained control of a little piece more of the competitive OS. Can't keep porting crap over to Linux, have to build a better version of it which can convert MS app files/documents, and force Microsoft to keep up with the changes. Without the dedicated development team MS has, it would be difficult though to make consistant and coordinated changes to a program like that. Anyhow, I'm not too happy with this port. Linux is looking more like MS Linux.
Seriously, if it's as good as everyone says, and the architechture is better, and it runs smoother, and faster, what would be the downturn of this move?