Re: free database server for desktop application with ado.net driv
From: Adam Clauss (cabadam_at_tamu.edu)
Date: 08/13/04
- Next message: Paul Talbot: "Re: How could I expand the Listbox Control"
- Previous message: krishnadevan: "How to get the Class name of a window ?"
- In reply to: Patty O'Dors: "Re: free database server for desktop application with ado.net driv"
- Next in thread: Daniel Jin: "Re: free database server for desktop application with ado.net driv"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:09:56 -0500
"Patty O'Dors" <PattyODors@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:BC4DA923-380B-4A2A-BA91-2966EAA6D1F4@microsoft.com...
> If it works at all on linux, it isn't optimized for windows.
That is quite possibly the most ignorant statement I have ever heard in my life.
> Er... well that isn't windows's problem!
And it isn't a problem FOR Windows either!
> Yes, but a lot of the people here, myself included, are working on business
> applicaitons that are actually going to get them somewhere, or allow a
> company to produce some information or that it didn't have before. The MySQL
> "researchers" are basically just trying to reinvent the wheel in order to
> pursue their vain attempt to prove that anything that windows can do, linux
> can also do... I just don't see the point in doing that. Linux is fine for
> some things, web servers for instance - Google runs on linux! Just not
> hardcore databases and programming languages!
You've yet to give any reason why MySQL won't get "get them there". All you've done is say it won't. I would love to actually see
some of your reasoning on this. And "it was designed for Linux" is not a reason - that is ignorance.
> They always make it clear though, that the precompiled binary is distinctly
> worse, or an "old version".
And where do you see this? This once again proves you do not know what you are talking about - it is exactly the opposite. If you
look at their source downloads, it has a statement right above it saying:
"For maximum stability and performance, we recommend that you use the binaries we provide."
> Er... no. It was a metaphor, for saying that it never actually *gets* you
> anywhere useful. If you want to be be pedantic, I'll be exact - where it
> actually gets you going is just round and round in circles.
Again, how so? You make all these claims, but you have nothing to back them up!
> NO it's not! I just want to see the back of these silly little "free"
> schemes which aren't free at all. There's nothing wrong with the open source
> movement - just can't there be some money in it?
There is - that is why the have the commercial license. It is only free for use with other software that is free. If you are using
MySQL with a commercial product YOU HAVE TO BUY IT!!!
> And can't they be a little
> less moralistic - they're always banging on about how proprietary software is
> immoral, and that 'freeware' isn't actually free as you don't get the source
> code to it, well - their software is the LEAST free - who wants a program
> that whenever you use it, you have to distribute THEIR sourcecode with your
> program?
Again, then purchase the product like you do other closed-source products and you get the right to not have to distribute the
source.
> It's like working for a company that every evening, gets to open up your
> guts and rummage around to make sure you haven't eaten any company property.
What in the hell are you talking about...
> GCC.
And I quote:
"Compiler Advisory: Several users have reported random crashes and table corruptions when using MySQL binaries compiled with gcc
2.96 on the x86 Linux platform. We suggest that you use gcc 2.95 or gcc 2.91 to compile your own binaries. It should also be safe to
use gcc 3.2."
If you cannot read instructions, then that is not MySQL's fault.
> Well, you can deny it till you're blue in the face sunshine, but it won't
> make it true.
Likewise.
>
> .... which is written for linux. It's probably not all written in C++, I
> suspect there's a lot of delphi in there aswell.
Actaully, it is C/C++ w/ just a tad of assembly in there. I've compiled it.
> ..then that brings me back to my earlier point that it's jack of all trades,
> master of none...
Being cross-platform capable does not automatically mean it is poor.
> But why would you, when MSDE is just as easy to install?
Then don't - go get the binaries. And you were complaining about MySQL going in circles! Your argument is doing it!
> And 1000 times
> better, becuase it's not written by amateurs?
How do you assume MySQL is written by "amateurs"? There is no logic to that...
> "Open sourced and free" is a contradiction in terms!
How?
> If it's open source, it
> means you have to distribute their source code with it whenever you use
> whatever component it is in your program, which means you have to live by
> THEIR rules, which DOESN'T sound like freedom.
Then buy it, like you would have him do SQL server. Then you don't have to do that.
All this does is give you the OPTION. Option... thats a choice... freedom to make a choice... hmmm...
-- Adam Clauss cabadam@tamu.edu
- Next message: Paul Talbot: "Re: How could I expand the Listbox Control"
- Previous message: krishnadevan: "How to get the Class name of a window ?"
- In reply to: Patty O'Dors: "Re: free database server for desktop application with ado.net driv"
- Next in thread: Daniel Jin: "Re: free database server for desktop application with ado.net driv"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
