"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:web.4beaea3a4c27b058ae92d9930@news.povray.org...
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> > OK, so how many of you are thinking "hmm, that sounds like me" right
> > now? ;-)
>
> **me too**
>
> It's unfortunate, though, that large corporations in the modern world
don't have
> MORE Babbage types working for them (with the freedom to keep pushing for
> changes and improvements); it sure would eliminate lots of bad products

as well as good products

> from
> entering the marketplace--cars, software, etc.  Taking the time to
actually get
> it 'right' in the first place seems to be a lost philosophy, among many
> companies...whether due to economic constraints or whatever. Something
Babbage
> apparently didn't have to worry about.

Big part of "right" is "time" and "compromise". Any half assed product today
is worth infinitely more to me than a perfect product in 50 years, when I'll
most likely be worm fodder. Like it or not, we owe our current way of life
to quick development and turnaround times due to tight competition to
marketplace. Imagine if drugs were not made available until they were
improved to the point of having no side effects at all.

Post a reply to this message

>> Sure. But you'd have to have MySQL installed, then you'd have to create
>> a folder to put the files in, then execute several dozen raw SQL
>> commands to manually build the database, create the log files, build the
>> tables, then you'd have to configure the access controls, and then you
>> can configure Base to talk to it.
> 
> Um, no, generally the app will list mysql as a requirement, but then will 
> script the building of the database.  Or if it's SQLite, then it's pre-
> created by the application.  Running Linux applications isn't as complex 
> as you seem to think it is.
> 
> And as for the database creation, I tend to use something like Webmin or 
> MySQLAdmin (a PHP interface) which simplifies things.  But I'm also 
> comfortable using the mysql command-line client as well.

I'm not talking about "I installed this application which uses MySQL". 
I'm talking about "I want to use OO Base with a MySQL backend to quickly 
throw together a simple database". MS Access serves this use case much 
better.

> I'm not arguing that.
> 
> Though actually oobase does have it's own database format that's as easy 
> to use as MS Access (I hadn't actually looked at it because I don't use 
> it that often).

Mmm, OK. I didn't know that.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Looks like they're basically reinventing COM and CORBA without 
> following any actual standards, like COM or CORBA.

Great. It's 8:56 and I've already had my morning LOL! :-D

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Now, some of these may be out of 
> business, but that's not really to the point, because they *were* 
> competition when they were around, and they couldn't compete.

Couldn't compete with MS products? Or couldn't compete with MS's 
underhanded not-strictly-legal anti-competetive practices? That is the 
operative question.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:

> Imagine if drugs were not made available until they were
> improved to the point of having no side effects at all.

Just as a minor technical point: That's impossible.

There are two kinds of drugs: Those that have side-effects, and those 
that have *no* effects.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:55:48 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>> Though actually oobase does have it's own database format that's as
>> easy to use as MS Access (I hadn't actually looked at it because I
>> don't use it that often).
> 
> Mmm, OK. I didn't know that.

As had I not, until I ran oobase and looked at it again.  It's been a 
while.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:03:44 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> somebody wrote:
> 
>> Imagine if drugs were not made available until they were improved to
>> the point of having no side effects at all.
> 
> Just as a minor technical point: That's impossible.
> 
> There are two kinds of drugs: Those that have side-effects, and those
> that have *no* effects.

I think that's somebody's point.  If we waited until the product was 
perfect, it would never ship (whether it's software, drugs, or whatever).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Now, some of these may be out of business, but that's not really to 
>> the point, because they *were* competition when they were around, and 
>> they couldn't compete.
> 
> Couldn't compete with MS products? Or couldn't compete with MS's 
> underhanded not-strictly-legal anti-competetive practices? That is the 
> operative question.

Given that most of those OSes ran on machines where MS-DOS didn't, I'd say 
the former.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

>> There are two kinds of drugs: Those that have side-effects, and those
>> that have *no* effects.
> 
> I think that's somebody's point.

I had to parse that twice! ._.

> If we waited until the product was 
> perfect, it would never ship (whether it's software, drugs, or whatever).

It's not a good analogy. Drugs don't time a long time to ship because it 
takes time to improve them. They take a long time to ship because of all 
the multiple levels of safety testing that have to happen. (Speaking as 
somebody who works for a company in that line of business...)

I don't disagree that it takes time and money to build better software. 
I'm just saying this isn't a good analogy. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:42:49 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> There are two kinds of drugs: Those that have side-effects, and those
>>> that have *no* effects.
>> 
>> I think that's somebody's point.
> 
> I had to parse that twice! ._.

Yeah, as I wrote it, I thought "this could be quite confusing". ;-)

>> If we waited until the product was
>> perfect, it would never ship (whether it's software, drugs, or
>> whatever).
> 
> It's not a good analogy. Drugs don't time a long time to ship because it
> takes time to improve them. They take a long time to ship because of all
> the multiple levels of safety testing that have to happen. (Speaking as
> somebody who works for a company in that line of business...)
> 
> I don't disagree that it takes time and money to build better software.
> I'm just saying this isn't a good analogy. ;-)

Well, yeah, it's not really a good analogy after a point, but there is a 
sort of iterative process used in developing new drugs, too - I think 
that's what somebody was trying to say. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message