Comment Re:What is Perl? (Score 1) 379
some people seem to get plenty of good performance :
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/modperl/104941
some people seem to get plenty of good performance :
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/modperl/104941
Agreed on all points.
I write software for the insurance industry, where the constant flow of money breeds more managers than at places like IBM.
The amount of meaningless metrics required by these people is staggering (think quarterly statistics on liability insurance for a 30 person team which generates an average of four claims a year; multiply by hundreds of contracts; do not aggregate, use individual Excel spreadsheets)
I have come to the conclusion that the vast superiority of OSS stems from the very absence of management in its conception/realization.
Also, I believe cubic rage is a sign of _good_ mental health
Listening to one of them speaking would give you all the evidence you need. I'm being harsh, though : they do seem relatively bright, when compared to soccer supporters.
(yes I _am_ bitter from seeing that stupid sport being hugely subsidized)
"One expensive commercial product with ultra-low overhead "
Contradiction in terms.
"Because bitcoin is a pure pump and dump scam."
I wonder why so many hackers are interested in it then?
" The faster it dies the better."
If it doesn't die, I would guess it will come out stronger
Call me when you have anything meaningful to do with more than
1024 columns
Very valid points against the cloud, thank you.
"I'm a big linux advocate, but it doesn't necesarily mean postgres can be swapped in for MSSQL, it all depends very heavily on the POS software."
No doubt this would be very difficult, hence the use of a virtual machine to host Windows; but using linux on the hardware would provide the desired stability of the server, and the possibility to use some open source software, if any.
But there is a learning curve, which is why is recommended the LUG, where one can probably find some competent admin(s) to set up a very stable machine for a fraction of the cost of MS's licences.
>I would not push your main server to the cloud
I'm curious why?
I host a small web site on a dedicated server for 20 dollars a month, it's in a much safer environment than my home office, let alone a restaurant, and with much better connectivity
To the OP:
I suggest you go to a nearby Linux Users Group and find someone to install a server for you, with a VM on it to host your Windows applications.
I use Debian, my first server was up for 533 days before the ISP imposed a reboot for a bios update. It has a postgresql database on it.
You can see it in action here (those are records of insurance claims ):
http://as-pro.biz/clients/login?nom_utilisateur=demo-mfp&mot_de_passe=demo-mfp
What a nice piece of FUD...
I run two debian based internet servers hosting dynamic sites connected to a database. Licence cost is 0, and I have 24*7 top notch support, for free, with the proper groups.
Doing the same thing with MS software would :
-cost me over 30 000 dollars a year to be compliant
-force me to dramatically increase my hardware costs
-turn my development work into a nightmare.
I can see how some people could be bothered by Debian servers.
The full Debian system includes something like 35 000 packages, only a fraction of which are needed for any machine.
I run several Debian based web servers with a LAMP stack of Linux/Apache/Mod_perl/Postgresql. Disk usage is less than 3Go.
"The environment is unable to complete at this point because it doesn't know what table/join I'll be selecting from."
I got that
"If SQL syntax were the more natural FROM [join description] SELECT [projection]
IMO this is a very minor inconvenience compared to the power of SQL for managing large datasets, when one knows how to use it. You are welcome to propose a new standard, but I wonder if you considered all the implications of this change on things other than the convenience of typing?
With MS-Access, I used to solve this with a 3 line VB procedure that outputs the list of field names. With Postgresql, I simply run this query (the table has 34 fields) :
SELECT column_name FROM information_schema.columns WHERE table_name = 'tblcontentieux';
A few key strokes in Emacs to add the table identifier t1 to each field (just a simple replace-string) and the appropriate SQL. Very easy, I did it just for fun, and did not type any of these field names :
SELECT t1.id_contentieux, t1.id_etat, t1.affaire, t1.libelle, t1.date_debut_contentieux, t1.date_fin_contentieux, t1.ref_dossier, t1.ref_avocat, t1.ref_huissier, t1.ref_assureur, t1.id_service, t1.notes_contentieux, t1.id_categorie, t1.id_position, t1.id_nature, t1.suivi_par, t1.montant, t1.id_site, t1.id_client, t1.description, t1.franchise, t1.id_keyword, t1.ref_archive, t1.remboursement_prevu, t1.address1, t1.address2, t1.ville, t1.code_postal, t1.id_budget, t1.responsabilite, t1.id_agent, t1.id_contrat, t1.id_garantie, t1.id_objet_parc FROM tblcontentieux t1;
"Why are you using booleans in your database? "
I forgot to reply to this part : booleans are useful when you only ever want 2 (or perhaps 2+NULL) values allowed for the column. It's about consistency.
They are, there is just disagreement over them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_data_type
Postgresql has a boolean data type
Man, this must be the stupidest argument I read in years.
Typing the column names can easily be avoided with an appropriate query to list them, and a few strokes in a text editor will adapt the list to the query. Emacs has an sql mode which I use all the time for these things; very convenient.
I am dumbfounded that you could put this forward as an argument against SQL. This workplace you mention really appears like an awful place.
>I want to pick and choose what applications I want to run, not >be presented with whatever poorly designed program some >smelly neckbeard favors.
So I take it you must be using open source software?
>This is why Windows has always been favored over both Linux
>and MacOS in both the corporate and home environments.
Hu, no : the reason why windows was favored is because it was pushed by IBM; since management in general will simply do what the others do, because that can't be held against them, that's how it spread; certainly not for its qualities.
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.