Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:04:37 GMT
Message-ID: <FwDrg.7675$pu3.170972_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> What is there to say? Any claim about relational being dead
> by someone who isn't even aware of what a relational dbms is is
> not worth responding to. The guy has no vaguest clue about
> data management, data theory, or the current state of the art.
>
> In fact, he doesn't seem to be aware of state of the art 30 years ago.
> Remember: those who get an F in history are doomed to repeat
> it next semester.
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:04:37 GMT
Message-ID: <FwDrg.7675$pu3.170972_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall wrote:
>>Where's the guys from the theory group? Have you guys nothing to say on >>this matter?
>
> What is there to say? Any claim about relational being dead
> by someone who isn't even aware of what a relational dbms is is
> not worth responding to. The guy has no vaguest clue about
> data management, data theory, or the current state of the art.
>
> In fact, he doesn't seem to be aware of state of the art 30 years ago.
> Remember: those who get an F in history are doomed to repeat
> it next semester.
And here I thought I already replied to him. What am I? Chopped liver? Received on Sat Jul 08 2006 - 03:04:37 CEST