I know, I know. Mailed it to feedback 6 months ago or so. But... Oracle support on Linux was also necessary, so Command was the right choice. Even better: you can easily replace the mysql protocol in Command, so...
Nevertheless, their C mysql implementation has room for improvement ;-) Another thing: The pure REBOL solution by DocKimbel is faster (!) than the C implementation on the REBOL layer ;-) They are better than they think at RT! --Maarten Petr Krenzelok wrote: > Maarten Koopmans wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Command (2.0 and up) have built-in Mysql support ;-) >> I have used it extensively under Linux, but.... >> >> - strange errors in datatype conversion sometimes happen >> - it is *slow* >> >> OTOH: DocKimbel (Reb/sites/DocKimbel) made a tcp based >> mysql driver that runs on Core 2.5! It is up to 30 times faster and >> has *no* problems I know off. You can simple 'do' it to replace the >> built-in Command implementation, and it has the same way of calling. > > > I haven't done any testing myself yet, but if it is so, it's pretty > ... ehm .... Our company paind 700 USD for /Command, which does not > seem to be up-to-date enough to compete with free implementation? I > think that once DocKimbel releases his free FastCGI protocol, someone > else does ODBC library wrapper and there is no reason anymore for > anyone to buy /Command, as everything else is in View/Pro ... ;-) ... > ah .... I forgot there is no Core/Pro, so Unix users would still be > required to buy Command, because of that X11 gfx thing .... > > -pekr- > >> >> >> HTH, >> >> Maarten >> >> Ammon Johnson wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am running Command on Linux & I need to connect to an M$ SQL >>> Server. Has this been done? can it be done? I know that it is >>> possible to get ODBC for Linux, I was just wondering if it was >>> necisary. Thanks!! >>> Ammon >>> >> >> > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
