On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 09:32:55 PM lee wrote: > "J. Roeleveld" <jo...@antarean.org> writes: > > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 08:03:25 PM Mick wrote: > >> On Tuesday 29 Dec 2015 17:37:25 lee wrote: > >> > Are we at the point where users are accepting to have to install and > >> > maintain a fully fledged RDBMS just for a single application which > >> > doesn't even need a database in the first place? > >> > >> Yes, a sad state of affairs indeed. I was hoping for the last 5-6 years > >> that someone who can code would come to their senses with this > >> application > >> and agree that not all desktop application use cases require some > >> enterprise level database back end architecture, when a few flat data > >> files > >> have served most users perfectly fine for years. I mean, do I *really* > >> need a database for less that 60 entries in my address book?!! > > > > I'm no longer convinced a database isn't needed. > > Kmail1 was slower than kmail2 is these days. > > We are talking here about a single application. Are users nowadays > generally willing, inclined and in the position to deploy a RDBMS just > in order to use a single application? Can they be expected to run > several RDBMSs when the next application comes along and suggests mysql > instead of postgresql?
Most applications use a database of one type or another. Flatfiles are a bad idea when performance is important with large datasets. My email is a large dataset. > Ironically, in this case you require the RDBMS to be able to use an > application which is too unstable to be used even without one. Why not > use a better application for the same purpose instead? You wouldn't > have to worry about your emails then. I don't worry about my emails. I find kmail2 to be more stable and usable then kmail1. -- Joost
