Semi-OT: Database for "average" users

Mon May 2 17:04:12 UTC 2005

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:29:06AM -0400, phil wrote:
> (I know I'm starting to repeat myself and I'll stop soon, but....)
> 
> On May 2, 2005, at 11:19 AM, billt-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org wrote:
> 
> > I suggest that you give a non-administrator the job of setting up a 
> > non-trivial samba set up and see how far they get.
> >
> > Or give a non-expert a highly templated MSOffice environment (ie there 
> > is a template for every document, cross templates for linked 
> > documents, etc ...) like that found in a law office and see how far 
> > they get doing any work.
> 
> However my point is that there are trivial uses of these things that 
> don't require expert knowledge.  If word processors forced you to do 
> all the kerning by hand or some such thing then that would be a reason 
> to tell a beginner to use something else for simple jobs.  It may be 
> overkill and it may be a waste of resources, but it doesn't present a 
> massive barrier to getting started.

There are trivial things you can do with a database. The point your missing is that people turn to databases when the problem is non-trivial. The attitude was expressed well when earlier when it was pointer out that if a flat file can't be used the person immediately turns to a DB. I have no reason to believe that the problem can't be solved using a file sytem and flat files, but somewhere in the planning stage the complexity increases where a database pays off.

Now if you had a simple application that needed to look up a row based on a unique ID, a database can do this trivially, but so can a flat file.

You see know one in their right mind will use a database until the problem reaches a level of complexity that they personally feel they need a database.

> 
> > Remember you are not complaining about database technology, you are 
> > complaining about the levels of complexity of the project. It is for 
> > 'the complexity of the project' that database people get paid for.
> 
> I have no problem with database people getting paid.  In fact, more 
> would be better.  :-)  My "complaint" is really about a big gap in 
> technology between a word processor table (or spreadsheet) on one hand 
> and PostgreSQL on the other.  Or maybe it isn't a gap and I simply 
> don't know what's there...it's a space that things like Filemaker (and 
> maybe MS Access) seem to touch on, but for Open Source equivalents...?
> 
Yes there is such equivalents. The point is one of philosophy. You want a packaging system that will install the GUI as well as the back end engine. MSAccess is actually multiple products one of which is the GUI that gets launched. You can install only the JET DB engine without the GUI. You can also install the GUI with ODBC drivers to a remote DB without the JET DB engine. The point is that a typical install installs both, while in the unix world one normally needs to install multiple packages.

The applications you are looking for are out there and available for linux. The open source world has one of its core philosphies to separate out the different independant parts. The windows (and especially MAC) world has the philosophy of having everything and the kitchen sink into one product. Neither side is right or wrong its a matter of preference. I prefer to be able too control what I put into my systems.

Bill

> ........................
> Phillip Mills
> Multi-platform software development
> (416) 224-0714
> 
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml