Re: What would be a truly relational operating system ?

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:36:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4d575179-33dd-4672-bb01-8685160d5f49_at_s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>



On 13 nov, 16:09, Rob <rmpsf..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 12:54 pm, Cimode <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I never undesrtood the hierarchical obsession.  It is like a bad
> > natural habit.
>
> A person of your obvious intelligence and proficiency in
> matters relational has no problem interacting with databases.
>
> That is fine for you, but for the vast majority of people (not just
> IT people), database interaction will be impossible without
> a level-appropriate interface, preferably graphical.
>
> I've never seen a non-proprietary graphical database interface
> for RDBs that was not basically textual. I know there are
> database experts in cdt who will disagree with me on this,
> but I believe that the common man understands hierarchical
> intuitively, whereas tabular/textual interfaces are incomprehensible
> when the amount of data that can be displayed textually
> exceeds the size of the screen. Graphical representation
> of hierarchies using color, size, shape, icons and action
> are so much more compact.
>
> If you extrapolate backwards from what I say to "we should
> go back to hierarchical DBMSs," you are wrong. What I want
> to see are hierarchical interfaces to RDBMSs.
>
> Hit me!

No time. Databases and RM have nothing to say about user interfaces: they are in separate layers. If you ask me, I am not convinced either that hierachical displays are a good way to display or even navigate.
Say GOOGLE ;)))

> Rob
Received on Fri Nov 13 2009 - 12:36:14 CST

Original text of this message