>I for one welcome arresting people who seem to think it is a good idea to enter someones home just because they didn't get to update all their locks on their home.

I think your example is a bit too gentle.

This is more like someone kicking your locked front door down and pointing out that your door isn't strong enough to prevent someone from kicking it down.

The system was "locked" for all intents and purposes, as best the system administrators knew how to lock it. It wasn't because they were lazy or forgot, they just didn't know the door had any weaknesses.

You would think if the government was doing this, they would at least tell their fellow government agencies about the flaws, so that they would not be vulnerable to foreign hackers...

>*If* he'd said it in the 1840's... that'd be a pretty common view and chances are I wouldn't care much... but then there would also be the issue of how I would know he said it.

We're not talking about 50 years ago, we're talking about today...

>If someone said that in Alabama in 1957, would it be justified to deny them employment for the rest of their life even if they changed their mind after the Civil Rights Act passed?

We're not talking about 50 years ago, we're talking about today.

>and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.

Would you call it "just an opposing view" if it were something else?

What if he had said, "blacks don't deserve the right to vote"?

>I think his point is to say that MySQL is a full fledge SQL database is like saying IE 6 is a standards compliant web browser.

Herein lies the problem: what standards are you referring to? ACID? Mysql 5.5 in strict mode *is* ACID compliant.

>MySQL owes its success to web frameworks where better SQL servers like Postgres are considered an overkill and it works quite well in that domain.

I think you're remembering history differently than it was. MySQL was always significantly faster than Postgres, which was a slow database until relatively recently. There's a reason companies like Google chose MySQL for their adsense platform.

>If your requirements are more on the SQL-side than the web-side of the equation, you would do much better with Postgres.

Oh, absolutely. But... this comes down to a "right tool for the job" situation. The other guy that was replying to me just hates mysql and sees no use for it.

>MySQL is the IE 6 of the database world. It encourages poor developer practice

This would be true if IE6 was easier to use than every other browser out there.

MySQL is simple, fast and does a sufficient job for those who use it.

>It's not supposed to be allowed to guess if the user tells it to do something ambiguous or nonsensical.

Considering most people who use MySQL also use PHP, this actually makes perfect sense. PHP is loosely typed, and in a way, so is MySQL. It's forgiving and makes corrections based on context.

I'm curious if you actually feel MySQL has no place in any application...

Does ease of use count for nothing to you? It's significantly faster to get a web app up and running with mysql than it is with postgres.

Lol. I love how you're using a medical application as the standard/bar for all database use everywhere.

You would do very poorly working on large scale web services.

Your definition of "web forum" is looser than mysql when it's not in strict mode.

>Which is fine if you're setting up a web forum,

Or.. you know, a top 5 website... small potatoes.

>but not when you're organizing an enterprise that spans the world and has numerous applications accessing it

Silly me, I didn't realize every tech industry could be summed up so tightly. Everyone that uses mysql must simply be retarded, and everyone that uses PGSQL a genius.

>Not just me... most professionals know this and accept it and know that not every tool fits every scenario.

And yet somehow you insinuate that the only possible use for mysql is a "web forum".

The first item from your link:

He tries to insert 99999999999999 into a 32 bit int field, what he gets is 2147483647 stored as the value.

What do you suppose would happen in C/C++ if you have a 32 bit int, and you add 99999999999999 to it? Are you going to curse C/C++ for allowing the int to overflow?

Other databases (tested: Firebird 1.5rc4, Oracle 8.1.7 and PostgreSQL 7.4) raised errors with the same data.

Allow me to introduce you to strict mode: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refma...

Which has been available for almost a decade.

I guess we better not use C/C++ in that case. Getting integer overflows means it's not a serious language, we should call them "fuzzy integers" instead.

everyone lies, both to themselves and to others, most of the time.

This renders your original point irrelevant then. If everyone lies and I'm only lying 1/10 times, that means I'm far more trustworthy than not.

So if I say something with 90% accuracy, I'm liar when that 10% occurs?

That would make just about everyone a liar, since very few things can be said with 100% accuracy.

I say this line often, and I'm usually right.

How is this a lie?