Re: TRM - Morbidity has set in, or not?

On Fri, 12 May 2006 21:55:55 GMT, paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote:

>Marshall Spight wrote:
>> Frank Hamersley wrote:
>>
>>>Is there any veracity in _any_ of the claims made by _any_ of the parties?
>>>
>>>Given lots of mud gets flung as the discussion proceeds so I wondered if
>>>there was any corroborative or contrary sources.

>> The "transrelational" stuff doesn't have much written about it. I can't
>> find
>> anything to suggest that it's anything besides a traditional column
>> store.
> > ...
>
>Funny thing that. Although the patents are written in language that
>tries to be all-encompassing (maybe all patents these days try to claim
>every possible technique - I don't know), the central idea does seem

     That seems to be it. The few that I have checked myself seem to have related claims so that if one part of the patent is invalidated, another part may still apply.

>obvious (storage adjacency used for column order with links to relate
>values in 'rows' versus the typical impl'n that uses storage adjacency
>for relating values in rows and links for ordering). Still, I've seen a
>few implementations towards similar ends and at one time followed a lot
>of the literature and I've never actually seen anybody implement or
>describe anything quite like it, so even though it seems obvious it
>doesn't look mainstream traditional to me. But one person couldn't
>survey the whole field and it seems plausible to me that somebody else
>has done similar, perhaps in programs that aren't involved with
>conventional databases, even though I can't point to such an effort.

>> Various parties, including FP himself, have on occasion said, "oh no,
>> it's much more than that" but they don't back it up at all, so their
>> claims
>> are unevaluable.
>> ...

>I believe he is bound by some non-disclosure agreement and since the
>business involved has gone awry, he is stuck. So you can hardly blame
>him except perhaps for not having the foresight to sign a NDA that had
>no expiry date.

     An NDA is my understanding, too. I do not know about the expiry date bit though. BTW, I am a regular reader of dbdebunk.com.

>What is more mysterious to me is whether all the secrecy is because TRM
>is not entirely patentable, eg., is it more trade secret than novel
>technique?

     Maybe, but it could be covered by simply being cautious until you have something. Certainly, FP has a lot of bad to say about those trumpeting the Latest Thing.

>> Michael Stonebreaker has a small company that is selling a column
>> store; it looks quite interesting.
>> ...

>After a promising start many years ago, Stonebraker has long been a tech
>salesman for various fads. Is that the column store out of MIT dating
>from the early 1990's?

     FP has said that.

>> As an aside, I note that Mr. Pascal spends quite a lot of time telling
>> us
>> how smart and logical he is, ...

     As a regular reader of dbdebunk.com, I call bullshit!

>Well, I've read at least a few hundred pages written by him and although
>I didn't understand parts of it, I can't recall him boasting about
>himself, not even once.

>> and how all of his opponents are stupid,
>> ignorant, and illogical. He also spends a lot of time name calling, and
>> even making fun of other people's names! ...

     As a regular reader of dbdebunk.com, I call bullshit!

> From what I've read, most of his "opponents" haven't got the foggiest
>of what he is talking about.

>> I wonder: has he ever
>> accomplished anything that would back up his claims? Has he ever
>> published a proof? Published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal?
>> Made use of any formal methods? Written any software? To my
>> knowledge, he has published two books, one of them "Practical
>> Issues is Database Management". Which was a fine book, although
>> the last person I leant it to noted "you could hear the axe grinding
>> on every page."
>> ...

     Perish the thought that someone should have an agenda. I like FP's of supporting the RM. It is far better than these slimy Latest Things that keep popping up from under rocks.

>Yes, he has performed a public service, mostly without gain to himself
>whereas many of the "opponents" puff fools-gold because it is in their
>own interest to make systems bigger and more grandiose than they need to
>be. IT being a modern-day goldrush is full of carpet-baggers always
>promising more than they can deliver. Some chemistry and other Ph.D's
>got into programming because there's more money in it plus they were
>second-rate in their first field anyway. Peer review means less and
>less now and is often a joke - more like a cover to protect "jobs for
>the boys". CS credentials are usually a tawdry peerage - most of those
>"peers" should demand refunds of their tuition fees but only a few have
>the brains to see this and even fewer have the guts.

     FP is plainspoken, and he backs up his statements. The namecalling is on the other side.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Sat May 13 2006 - 00:41:18 CEST