Worked at a major software house serving ðe biggest telecom operators all over the world. Ðe company started doing top notch Unix software, even creating its own SQL-like DBMS when Oracle was not good enough. Everyone from ðat era got promoted out of technical oversight over what was produced later, and ðe people who produced software later also got promoted out of technical oversight, so we were left with Microsofties who feared ðe Posix code, did not understand it, and were capable only of implementing overdue business requirements, not of any technical improvement or even technology updates.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Will be this the real Hurd?
Thanks for the link. Thus my whining at a patently absurd phrase actually taught me something nice!
Does it mean hygrogen & oxigen are separately bound up in rock?
I call BS. For most non-enterprise purposes, MySQL is more than good enough as long as you make regular backups and use any modern operating system with a journaling file system.
It may have changed, but its hot backup tool was proprietary. Anyway, it continues to be buggy, to lack data integrity constraints, to fail silently, to be incompatible with the SQL standards PostgreSQL is much more ISO compliant, less buggy, totally free
Friends do not let friends suffer MySQL. Go for Glom or LibreOffice Base over PostgreSQL.
Knuth and Dijkstra for programming, Date for databases.
What fazed me is ðey never even estimated ðe costs
Is SQL really that right language for encoding business logic?
Yes, SQL is quite adequate, more so than most due to being declarative. The issue is not SQL per se, but poor support for it in everything but PostgreSQL and IBM DB2. The advantages of procedural languages (including OO and functional ones) are more in standardisation than in the language per se.
Sure enough. I do not think the Gripen will be it. I think it could be, just as ðe Harrier was; but in ðe end ðe probability is more of a massively expensive, not quite up to ðe task fleet of F-35s, and as a B plan ðe evolution of current aircraft while new, simpler ones are designed.
Wrong on all counts.
First, if you reread my post, I said it was just an option, besides revamping current models and creating a more focused aircraft.
Second, ðe US already did something like ðat with ðe Harrier II.
Third, ðe Sea Gripen is already in development and will probably be built as a result of Brazil’s need of new aircraft for its current and future carriers. 24 or such units is not a bad first order for a modification of an existing, & already cheap, model.
So many failures by trying to be all things to all people as long as the taxpayer foots it all.
My native Brazil has decided on ðe Saab JAS 39E Gripen NG, as did Switzerland where I lived. Two very different countries, very different needs, and sure enough the Gripen even in its NG version cannot do all the F-35 should be able to do — but it does not need to. It is more of a versatile aircraft, doing passably well in its intended deployments at a reasonable cost, than a do-it-all.
It is not to say the US should just ditch ðe F-35 and localise ðe Gripen just as ðey did with ðe Harrier. But it could be an strategy: to have a flexible (‘swing role’ is what Saab calls it) main aircraft, perhaps the evolution of ðe F-18, perhaps a pared down F-35 just as ðe Chinese did, and dedicated planes to do things ðe main platform cannot do, such as ðe A and B planes: ðe A-10, ðe Harrier &, yes, ðe B-52, or evolutions or replacements ðereof. Theoretically a single plane should be cheaper to keep ðan several ones, but not when its costs spiral out of control.
it's a biblical thing?
No prob at all.
Thank you, even if I fear it is too late to fix.
While I do speak French too, the mistake is probably from my native (Brazilian) Portuguese.