"J. Roeleveld" <[email protected]> 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? 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.
