Scott Chapman said:
> approachable full web stack that may ease this problem. We'll see how it
> matures. IMHO, sticking with Python is worth getting over the initial
> confusion. Python offers a lot of choices, which is great, but you have
> to do more digging initially.
Scott,
I might say
> Let's be careful out there. I have found rookies tend to blindly
> evangelically tout their first learned tool as the one and only path of
> light to truth and world peace.
Fred, I think you just hit a good part of the reason that PHP and MySQL have
mind-share out there when they are lousy
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Piskorski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 1:08 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] SQLite Advocacy
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:18:21PM +0200, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> AP>>:) Yes. AFAICT, the on
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:18:21PM +0200, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> AP>>:) Yes. AFAICT, the only excuse for the existence of MySQL and PHP at
> AP>>all is the ignorance of their creators. They are poor tools for the
> Thanks for extending horizons of my knowledge.
Why, you're quite welcome.
Yes, you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar as they say.
FWIW, the only way I even _found_ SQLite was because of PHP5.
I'm quite pleased with both, though if you have tools that suit your
needs better, then by all means: use them.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:18:21 +0200 (IST), Stanislav
AP>>:) Yes. AFAICT, the only excuse for the existence of MySQL and PHP at
AP>>all is the ignorance of their creators. They are poor tools for the
That's very funny to see how thread named "SQLite Advocacy" is dedicated
to bashing MySQL and PHP. I guess there's some meaning of the word
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 7:52 am, John Dean wrote:
> At 14:57 02/02/2005, Paul Malcher wrote:
> >Scott Chapman wrote:
> >>Regarding the issue of SQL Server vs. SQLite:
> >>If the choice were between SQL Server and SQLite, and the need came up
> >>that SQLite could not meet, I'd pitch for
>Not true at all. In fact, from experience, the Linux OS is
>>much more full of holes than Windows. It appears most hate
>>
>>
Linux OS is the kernel, the rest is third party. The kernel 2.6.10 is
now the latest, that means there were 10 upgrades last three (four ?) years in
the serie
The other important thing to remember is that this only shows
desktop systems. Servers are much more likely to be linux or
Sun than desktops and Servers don't surf :)
--- Greg Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> D. Richard Hipp wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 11:31 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
D. Richard Hipp wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 11:31 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
99% of the world is on windows
I can't speak for the whole world, but visitors to the
SQLite website over the past two weeks break out something
like this:
Windows: 80.6%
Linux:14.9%
Mac:
Some good comments everyone. Thank you very much. Sorry to derail the
technical discussions here to such an extent.
I just wanted to say that I read everyone's replies and I am making most
of the changes requested. Especially the good comments from cirisme -
Thanks.
And yes Dr. Hipp is
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 09:27 -0500, Downey, Shawn wrote:
> In our organization, my management is debating the use of SQLite vs. MS
> SQL Server 7 for an upcoming MS Windows project.
As it turns out, I am familiar with the software that Mr. Downey
refers to and can state with confidence that his
-Original Message-
From: Mario Ruggier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 12:24 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] SQLite Advocacy
On Jan 31, 2005, at 5:48 PM, Paul Malcher wrote:
> Fred Williams wrote:
>
>> Politic
On Jan 31, 2005, at 5:48 PM, Paul Malcher wrote:
Fred Williams wrote:
Politically, if you are in the organization that was "acquired", you
best bite the bullet and learn to dance the Big Gates' version of "I
Shall Overcome." I don't think there is a WinCE version of SQL
Server,
(yet) so that
(cell)
-Original Message-
From: Tim Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 12:44 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: RE: [sqlite] SQLite Advocacy
> -Original Message-
> From: Downey, Shawn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31 January 2
I'd agree with Tim, focus on the merits and disadvantages of each
without resorting to bashing.
Some suggestions:
Eliminate:
>>2. An SQLite database is exactly one file. SQL Server 7 has many
files for each table in the database.<<
Or merge it with #1. This isn't an advantage unless
On Monday 31 January 2005 7:58 am, Downey, Shawn wrote:
> "If anyone can see the source code, then won't we be venerable to
> hackers?"
Here is a very useful paragraph that should be given to anyone who thinks in
the above terms:
"A common question in the minds of some CEOs and CIOs is, 'If it
3. SQLite is much faster than SQL Server 7.
I'm sorry but you simply cannot state that.
Sure, it's faster in some circumstances, but there are situations where SQL
Server 7 would definately be faster. And if you're in that situation, then
you probably want advanced features such as replication
> -Original Message-
> From: Downey, Shawn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31 January 2005 17:16
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: RE: [sqlite] SQLite Advocacy
>
> Thanks everyone for there input. See below for the arguments
> I've compiled so far. Pl
Thanks everyone for there input. See below for the arguments I've
compiled so far. Please let me know if I am incorrect on any of these
items. Do we have any speed comparisons between SQLite and SQL Server
7?
I do understand we are talking Apples and Oranges here. Never the less,
I need to do
Maybe this link could help:
http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php
Rani
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 16:58, Downey, Shawn wrote:
...
> I am sorry I can not disclose more about the products in question. What
> I am looking for are some talking points which can convince my own
> management to push
Fred Williams wrote:
Politically, if you are in the organization that was "acquired", you
best bite the bullet and learn to dance the Big Gates' version of "I
Shall Overcome." I don't think there is a WinCE version of SQL Server,
(yet) so that might be your only real chance.
My experience with
Downey, Shawn wrote:
I am trying to overcome the attitude of:
"If SQLite is as good as you say, then why is it free?"
and
"If anyone can see the source code, then won't we be venerable to
hackers?"
Hi, I hope I may be of assistance in this area. I own my own company and
we use exclusively open
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:58 AM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: RE: [sqlite] SQLite Advocacy
Thank you for your replies (both yours and Jalil's). I understand that
SQLite is not universally applicable. Let me give you some background
to better explain my request.
We c
.hwaci.com/sw/sqlite/prosupport.html
Regards,
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Downey, Shawn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 3:58 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: RE: [sqlite] SQLite Advocacy
Thank you for your replies (both yours and Jalil's). I un
AIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:32 AM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: RE: [sqlite] SQLite Advocacy
I think if your organization is truly looking at SQLite vs SQL Server,
you need to reconsider your project specifications. You are basically
comparing a Corvette to a
I think if your organization is truly looking at SQLite vs SQL Server,
you need to reconsider your project specifications. You are basically
comparing a Corvette to a Greyhound Bus.
Fred
-Original Message-
From: Downey, Shawn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005
You should really consider the use-cases. SQLite is
meant to be used as an embeded database where as MS
SQL Server 7 is a full fledge RDBMS. Both have their
own place depending upon the requirement and may not
be possible to use interchangeably. I'd say it
depends...
HTH,
Jalil
--- "Downey,
28 matches
Mail list logo
