Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:56:54 +0100
Message-ID: <7sbfc0p7mbhq8npab6esnjadmvib1mivgt_at_4ax.com>
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 21:21:13 GMT, Jeff Brooks <jeff_brooks_at_nospam.com> wrote:
>Neo wrote:
>>>You still owe me $1000.
>>
>> Because RM solutions (1 and 2) thus far aren't as normalized or
>> generic as XDb1's, they fail under a broader scope of data.
>
>I decided to do a quick look at the xdb1 website. I found the following
>limitations posted on the site:
>
>LIMITATIONS
>-----------
>Single-User - It is not a multi-user database.
Well, okay, some applications only need a single user solution. Not many *real* applications, but I'm sure there must be some.
>RAM Intensive - It loads the entire database into main memory. The
>maximum database size is appoximately 4 GB with appropriate hardware.
>The maximum size will increase on 64-bit processors (ie Intel's Itanium).
>SQL - None. Data is managed via XDb's GUI, NLI and API. Things can be
>located via relational expressions.
Translation: "I can write a b-tree implementation, but an SQL parser is beyond me."
>Security - None currently.
Could this be the next Micros~1 database?
>Transactions - None.
It's definitely looking like Micros~1 material ...
>Recovery - None. Regular backups, UPS, stable OS, and reliable PC
>recommended.
Yep, Micros~1 will be making you an offer any day now, Keanu.
>Lol, xdb1 is a pathetic toy. No one in their right mind would rely on it
>for data storage.
>
>Jeff Brooks
>
>p.s. Neo your a fraud, and you owe Hugo $1000.
A fraud and a liar, with a half-baked product that makes even MS Access look good.
Pay the man, Keanu.
Lemming
-- Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.Received on Thu Jun 10 2004 - 02:56:54 CEST