Re: Wishing trolls away
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 18:47:00 +0200
Message-ID: <40a64988$0$566$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>Paul wrote:
>>>Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'd suggest downloading a commercial freebie and playing with it. Go
>>>>to www.u2ug.org and look for the links to the IBM download pages. The
>>>>denizens of comp.databases.pick are friendly if you need any help.
>>>
>>>OK I'm looking at: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/u2/
>>>What's the essential difference between UniData and UniVerse?
>>>It's not quite clear to me from the specs.
>>
>> From the FAQ at
>
> http://www.u2ug.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=FAQ&file=index&myfaq=yes&id_cat=2#1
>
>> · What are the differences between UniVerse and UniData? >> >> Coming soon!
>
> We just started the U2UG within the last year and the web site is new.
No problem, good luck with the UG.
Maybe Bill can send his answer to the people who maintain the website.
It is one of the first questions coming to mind when reading the site.
>
>>>I see they are both touted as "extended relational databases", that's >>>guaranteed to annoy some on this list! :) >> >>Now why would that be? :-)
>
> history and marketing ;-)
Heh. My question was about the annoyance, not about the marketing.
>>>OK, I'll have a look at Maverick as well. >> >>At http://mav.sourceforge.net I could not find wether / how Maverick >>relates to RM / SQL databases (not even in the FAQ). From what I read it >>effectively ignores them. Does anybody know if this is deliberate, if >>so, why?
I read a little more there.
Is http://sourceforge.net/projects/maverick related to http://mav.sourceforge.net (except obviously the name) ?
> Wol can give a better response as to what his original intent was, but this
> is an open source start at a Pick implementation. So, why is Dataphor
> ignoring the Nelson-PICK model? The reason why Maverick is ignoring the
> Codd model is pretty similar -- it has its roots elsewhere.
I suspect http://sourceforge.net/projects/maverick is a different beast alltogether. Naming things sure becomes difficult.
However, you somewhat defended the ignoring
(not sure if they do), I don't agree with you on this.
Somebody who is looking for a database will (currently)
at least have heard the word "relational", maybe even SQL.
The question "where does this database product stand" in
relation to those is legitimate. Even just such a statement
would help:
"You won't find anything about SQL here, this product
has different roots."
Received on Sat May 15 2004 - 18:47:00 CEST