Re: Wishing trolls away

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news: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.

Yup -- that's were that "extended relational" thing comes in ;-) Or, worse yet -- "post-relational"

> 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."

No one (yet) dares to suggest such things. Every PICK-based product in the marketplace (but perhaps not Maverick as yet) has a SQL interface to the product 'cause it has to. But I do understand your point that in order to explain to someone where your product fits, you need to describe it in relational to SQL-RDBMS's in some way in order to give the reader enough of a clue.

Cheers! --dawn Received on Sat May 15 2004 - 19:04:04 CEST