[KLUG Members] MySQL adoption

[komal]

Sorry for cross posting or top posting but any of the database has FoxPro
like easiness ?
Komal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Williams" <awilliam@whitemice.org>
To: <members@kalamazoolinux.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: [KLUG Members] MySQL adoption


> >> Apache/PHP came online as an easy and rather nifty way
> >> to solve a coiple of problems.
> >This is important and not enough emphasized by the pro-postgres people.
> >  It's like they don't want to admit it.  PHP/MySQL is Easy, fast,
> >cheap.  Lather, rinse, repeat.
>
> Actually the system I'm talking about uses niether PostgreSQL or MySQL; it
> uses a commercial database.  The database in question isn't the point.
>
> MySQL/PostgreSQL/whatever - the difference in the difficulty in
> implementation is totally negligible.
>
> >> And the intranet grew like a malignant
> >> cancer.
> >This was -because- Apache/PHP/Mysql are such a good combination (and
> >hey, if we assume Linux it is a LAMP system).  Rapid growth is not ipso
> >facto a bad thing, the cancer metaphor is pejorative.
>
> True, although were talking Apache/PHP/{InsertDBhere}, and not really
> LAMP, but LA?P.
>
> Rapid growth is certainly not a bad thing - we are discussing unengineered
> rapid growth - which is a bad thing.  Rapid unforseen growth, and being
> unforseen no initial accomidations were made far large increases in the
> level of complexity.
>
> > >> Right;  hence the emphasis on getting the message out to start that
> >> way.  Because hundreds of more-or-less stand alone PHP files is a mess.
> >> PHP and other scripting lanaguage are really handy,  but their also a
> >> trap.
> >That's your interpretation of your situation.  Not necessarily
> >duplicable everywhere else and not necessarily the proper interpretation
> >of your situation.
>
> I think my interpreation of my situtuation is pretty valid! :)
>
> >Hey, whose the Netadmin over there, doesn't he have
> >any responsibility in this? ;-)
>
> Sure I do,  and I'm sharing knowledge aquired through pain.
>
> >In my view the chief thing being overlooked by the
> >always-start-with-postgres crowd is while they see that the ease of
> >deployment of PHP/MySQL can create problems later they don't see that
> >the difficulty of PostGres with all it's programming overhead can create
> >problems now.
>
> The difference is merely one of API from the perspective of PHP.  Its not
> really what were talking about.
>
> >In other words, it is quite possible for a newbie to be so intimidated
> >by fearful talk of layer abstraction, triggers, transactions and views
> >that they never start: they never offer to do it at work, they never
>
> And in hindsight, I'm not certain never starting is such a terrible thing.
> If I (or anyone else) is going to inherit it and have to support it.
>
> I'm not saying LA?P sites CAN'T be well engineered, I'm saying it is
> *EASY* and *COMMON* for them not to be.  LA?P code can be just as modular,
> clear, and well-divided as code in any other language.  However,  the
> tempation for slapdashery is very high.  Thats the point I'm making.
>
> >create their own dynamic website, they never contribute their
> >intellectual capital to the growth of the internet and networks at large.
>
> >To use another metaphor, it's like building inspectors preaching
> >hellfire to the pioneers.  Maybe the inspectors know a lot about
> >buildings, but they're overlooking the need to build a country.  Hey, we
> >needed those people to move west and develop.  It was better for them to
> >build a lesser building and succeed (and build better later) than for
> >them to have never left home to build at all.
>
> True, but I think the methaphor has problems.  Expectation of exponential
> increases in complexity should be the assumption,  everything will be
> easier later, even if harder at first.  In most organizations the cost of
> building, scrapping, and rebuilding is just way too high; maybe because
> the cost of limping along on an existing base isn't properly perceived,
> but the "why" politically doesn't matter.
>
> >There is something valuable about contributing your effort to a larger
> >whole, leaving something behind you after you've moved on.  Those who do
> >not build leave nothing behind.  The principal ties in rather with the
> >whole open source movement, I believe.  The more people contributing
> >generally by trying new things specifically the better.
>
> Right, but those who build nothing reusable also leave nothing behind.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members@kalamazoolinux.org
>