| 1 |
"J. Roeleveld" <joost@××××××××.org> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 08:03:25 PM Mick wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Tuesday 29 Dec 2015 17:37:25 lee wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > Are we at the point where users are accepting to have to install and |
| 6 |
>> > maintain a fully fledged RDBMS just for a single application which |
| 7 |
>> > doesn't even need a database in the first place? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Yes, a sad state of affairs indeed. I was hoping for the last 5-6 years |
| 10 |
>> that someone who can code would come to their senses with this application |
| 11 |
>> and agree that not all desktop application use cases require some |
| 12 |
>> enterprise level database back end architecture, when a few flat data files |
| 13 |
>> have served most users perfectly fine for years. I mean, do I *really* |
| 14 |
>> need a database for less that 60 entries in my address book?!! |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I'm no longer convinced a database isn't needed. |
| 17 |
> Kmail1 was slower than kmail2 is these days. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
We are talking here about a single application. Are users nowadays |
| 20 |
generally willing, inclined and in the position to deploy a RDBMS just |
| 21 |
in order to use a single application? Can they be expected to run |
| 22 |
several RDBMSs when the next application comes along and suggests mysql |
| 23 |
instead of postgresql? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Ironically, in this case you require the RDBMS to be able to use an |
| 26 |
application which is too unstable to be used even without one. Why not |
| 27 |
use a better application for the same purpose instead? You wouldn't |
| 28 |
have to worry about your emails then. |
Archives