April 19, 2009 at 6:26 pm
steve dassin (4/19/2009)
Res ipse loquitor
*Ahem*
Just to be even-handed... 😀
Paul
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
April 19, 2009 at 6:29 pm
steve dassin (4/19/2009)
And there's nothing cheap in the ideas I'm trying to convey.
That's the point I've been trying to make. Some of your ideas are great... the manner in which you try to convey them isn't. Like you said, Res ipse loquitor.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 19, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Paul White (4/19/2009)
The link doesn't work, Paul.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 19, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Jeff Moden (4/19/2009)
The link doesn't work, Paul.
Thanks Jeff,
Fixed now! Forgot the http:// prefix :blush:
Cheers,
Paul
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
April 19, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Paul White (4/19/2009)
Lynn Pettis (4/19/2009)
With the hyperbola and attacks on SQL ServerI apologise profusely in advance, but:
My only excuse is that my English teacher was very strict, and it's stuck with me.
You hate me don't you? 😀
Paul
No... but I think your computer teacher may:hehe:... those links don't work either. 😛 Maybe it was actually a hyperbolic hyperbole?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 19, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Jeff,
I fixed those links at the same time - same problem.
You might need to refresh the page.
The links would have worked in CLR :w00t:
Paul
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
April 19, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Post deleted ... LP
April 19, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Not necessary is wording fix only... look eye, you must.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 19, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Jeff Moden (4/19/2009)
Not necessary is wording fix only... look eye, you must.
Hmmm, Cardinal Jeff, what else have I missed? My mind is else where at the moment, and I just don't seem to see it. Perchance it is another post in which a correctly spelled word is used in error?
I am, at the moment, actually concentrating on another article or three. The research is probably keeping me fir seeing the error.
April 19, 2009 at 8:44 pm
*** post deleted - PW ***
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
April 19, 2009 at 8:55 pm
post edited...
??? Missing something, I am?
April 19, 2009 at 8:57 pm
NOW I SEE IT. Looks like I got the wrong QUOTE >
ARRRRRGGGGG!!!!! I apologize, most profusely.
50 lashes with a wet noodle!
April 19, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Lynn Pettis (4/19/2009)
Too bad you haven't been able to convey anything worthwhile. With the hyperbole and attacks on SQL Server, you aren't going to convince anyone of anything. This is a professional site, try approaching it from that direction.Attacking that which we support only puts us on the defensive, if you haven't notice. Perhaps you should put some thought behind what you are attempting to do. Solid examples of how your "product" can help solve common business problems whould be one thing. Show us real world examples of your "product" actually being used in a real world environment solving these problems.
Perhaps a better avenue of approach would be a series of technical articles (minus any attacks on MS SQL Server) would be a start. But as I keep reminding you, MS SQL Server isn't the only SQL based RDBMS marketed today, but I have YET to even see you say ANYTHING negative about ANY of the other SQL based systems. Are they superior to MS SQL Server in some way? If so, I would suggest that you start targeting them for your "product".
When asked which db he thought was superior C. J. Date replied none because they're all the 'same'. From the perspective of relationaland all sql dbs share the same computer 'science'. A 'table' is the same 'thing' in Sql Server as it is in Oracle and in MySelf. Essentially you're replacing 'features', usually the criteria used to compare dbs, with something that is totally different, if not alien to most sql users. Date has devoted his life to trying
to explain the thing(s) that make for this sql 'sameness'. (I intend to make my attempt at an answer in a considerably shorter time :-)) The relational model can be thought of as what makes for this sameness thing is, the science part of sql, and what it means to supersede it.
In Sql:
SELECT * FROM Orders
in the RM:
SELECT Orders
both do the same thing and return the same results. Yes the syntax is different and is its own topic of discussion but the two statements represent two fundamentally different points of view, two different sciences. To understand them is to understand the 'features' in each, the
what and why of the them. The problem with all this has been that one
science has been presented as 'superior' to the other. I'm trying to walk a thin line by not repeating this point of view and 'offending' sql users while getting at what they are and what they represent. Code alone won't quite get at all this.
best,
steve
April 19, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Lynn Pettis (4/19/2009)
NOW I SEE IT. Looks like I got the wrong QUOTE >ARRRRRGGGGG!!!!! I apologize, most profusely.
50 lashes with a wet noodle!
Now I'm confused :unsure:
Perhaps I'll just go run some backups or something, and pop back later.
/Paul
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
April 19, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Paul White (4/19/2009)
Lynn Pettis (4/19/2009)
NOW I SEE IT. Looks like I got the wrong QUOTE >ARRRRRGGGGG!!!!! I apologize, most profusely.
50 lashes with a wet noodle!
Now I'm confused :unsure:
Perhaps I'll just go run some backups or something, and pop back later.
/Paul
We can be confused together. I was reading a different post, wanted to respond, but it appears I quoted the wrong post, and responded to yours thinking it was someone else. I again apologize so profusely.
Another 50 lashes with a wet noodle. Heaven knows well have a lot available tomorrow (spagetti dinner for my daughters JV Soccer team).
Viewing 15 posts - 226 through 240 (of 266 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply