Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously? - Linux

This is a discussion on Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously? - Linux ; On 2007-12-19, Gregory Shearman wrote: > raylopez99 wrote: >> Wow! *Amazing. *mysql is a good SQL language though the last version I >> checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures" (then again, >> neither does MSFT Access, which I'm ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 103

Thread: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

  1. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On 2007-12-19, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >> Wow! *Amazing. *mysql is a good SQL language though the last version I
    >> checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures" (then again,
    >> neither does MSFT Access, which I'm working with now).

    >
    > Postgresql supports stored procedures and much, much more.
    >
    > On linux you have a choice.


    On Windows, they don't have a choice of databases?

  2. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    DFS wrote:
    >
    > As of v4.1, MySQL would let you define constraints on a column, but would
    > not enforce them:


    I suggest you take a look at a newer version such as 5.1.

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  3. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    Gregory Shearman wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>
    >>> Wow! Amazing. mysql is a good SQL language though the last
    >>> version I checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures"

    >>
    >> As of v4.1, MySQL would let you define constraints on a column, but
    >> would not enforce them:
    >>
    >> DB > create table oss_crap (a int check (a>0))
    >> OK
    >> DB > insert into oss_crap values(0)
    >> OK
    >>
    >> As I said the other day: "That to me typifies what open source
    >> slopware is all about: cheap, poorly designed, poorly coded, poorly
    >> documented, fewer features, half-ass testing, etc. The ONLY things
    >> most open source code has going for it is price, and you can obtain
    >> it easily via download."

    >
    > This pathetic tirade has nothing at all to do with open source
    > applications.


    huh? Is MySQL all of a sudden not an open source application?



    > Postgresql supports constraints and much, much, much more.


    What does PostgreSQL have to do with MySQL?



    > One day you may stop your pathetic sniping and do some real work.


    I already do: with Oracle and SQL Server.

    Here's a PL/SQL routine I wrote a long time ago to generate VIEWs from a
    list of tables. I would be shocked if MySQL has this ability, 8 years
    later.

    DECLARE
    CURSOR ci_Tables IS
    SELECT SUBSTR(TABLE_NAME,4) AS SHORTNAME, TABLE_NAME AS FULLNAME
    FROM USER_TABLES
    WHERE SUBSTR(TABLE_NAME,1,1) = 'T'
    ORDER BY TABLE_NAME;
    i NUMBER := 0;
    createView VARCHAR2(200);
    viewCursor INTEGER;
    BEGIN
    FOR tbls IN ci_Tables LOOP
    createView := 'CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW ' || tbls.SHORTNAME || ' AS SELECT
    * FROM ' || tbls.FULLNAME ;
    viewCursor := DBMS_SQL.OPEN_CURSOR;
    DBMS_SQL.PARSE(viewCursor, createView, DBMS_SQL.NATIVE);
    DBMS_SQL.CLOSE_CURSOR(viewCursor);
    i := i + 1;
    END LOOP;
    DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE(i || ' views created');
    END;
    /




  4. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > On 2007-12-19, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>> Wow! *Amazing. *mysql is a good SQL language though the last version I
    >>> checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures" (then again,
    >>> neither does MSFT Access, which I'm working with now).

    >>
    >> Postgresql supports stored procedures and much, much more.
    >>
    >> On linux you have a choice.

    >
    > On Windows, they don't have a choice of databases?


    Does windows come with a database?

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  5. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    DFS wrote:

    > Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Wow! Amazing. mysql is a good SQL language though the last
    >>>> version I checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures"
    >>>
    >>> As of v4.1, MySQL would let you define constraints on a column, but
    >>> would not enforce them:
    >>>
    >>> DB > create table oss_crap (a int check (a>0))
    >>> OK
    >>> DB > insert into oss_crap values(0)
    >>> OK
    >>>
    >>> As I said the other day: "That to me typifies what open source
    >>> slopware is all about: cheap, poorly designed, poorly coded, poorly
    >>> documented, fewer features, half-ass testing, etc. The ONLY things
    >>> most open source code has going for it is price, and you can obtain
    >>> it easily via download."

    >>
    >> This pathetic tirade has nothing at all to do with open source
    >> applications.

    >
    > huh? Is MySQL all of a sudden not an open source application?
    >
    >
    >
    >> Postgresql supports constraints and much, much, much more.

    >
    > What does PostgreSQL have to do with MySQL?
    >
    >
    >
    >> One day you may stop your pathetic sniping and do some real work.

    >
    > I already do: with Oracle and SQL Server.
    >
    > Here's a PL/SQL routine I wrote a long time ago to generate VIEWs from a
    > list of tables. I would be shocked if MySQL has this ability, 8 years
    > later.
    >
    > DECLARE
    > CURSOR ci_Tables IS
    > SELECT SUBSTR(TABLE_NAME,4) AS SHORTNAME, TABLE_NAME AS FULLNAME
    > FROM USER_TABLES
    > WHERE SUBSTR(TABLE_NAME,1,1) = 'T'
    > ORDER BY TABLE_NAME;
    > i NUMBER := 0;
    > createView VARCHAR2(200);
    > viewCursor INTEGER;
    > BEGIN
    > FOR tbls IN ci_Tables LOOP
    > createView := 'CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW ' || tbls.SHORTNAME || ' AS
    > SELECT
    > * FROM ' || tbls.FULLNAME ;
    > viewCursor := DBMS_SQL.OPEN_CURSOR;
    > DBMS_SQL.PARSE(viewCursor, createView, DBMS_SQL.NATIVE);
    > DBMS_SQL.CLOSE_CURSOR(viewCursor);
    > i := i + 1;
    > END LOOP;
    > DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE(i || ' views created');
    > END;
    > /


    Who cares about MySQL? I prefer not to use it.

    I suppose someone will tell you that MySQL now supports stored procedures,
    but if you wanted something like that in the past you could always find it
    free with just about any linux distribution.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  6. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    * Gregory Shearman fired off this tart reply:

    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> On 2007-12-19, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>> Wow! *Amazing. *mysql is a good SQL language though the last version I
    >>>> checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures" (then again,
    >>>> neither does MSFT Access, which I'm working with now).
    >>>
    >>> Postgresql supports stored procedures and much, much more.
    >>>
    >>> On linux you have a choice.

    >>
    >> On Windows, they don't have a choice of databases?

    >
    > Does windows come with a database?


    You can get a number of free databases that work with both Windows and
    Linux.

    Hell, even in the 1980's. Remember Wampum?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampum

    Wampum is also the name of a popular shareware database
    management system based on dBASE III used on IBM-compatible PCs
    in the 1980's and 1990's.

    These "Windows has it, Linux don't" (and vice versa) arguments are as
    solid as any feature matrix that leaves out the main features of an
    operating system.

    --
    Tux rox!

  7. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    Chris V wrote:

    >Again I'm amazed that anyone engages this worthless POS troll. You
    >answer him, and he calls you a liar and claims that what you wrote
    >doesn't count. There is no more utterly worthless troll in this
    >group. And that is saying something.


    You're quite right... as it happens I skipped the earlier thread.

    --
    ciao,
    Bruce

    drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/


  8. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Dec 18, 1:49 pm, raylopez99 wrote:
    > On Dec 17, 7:25 pm, ray wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > I use it fairly seriously - I used to use it quite seriously - for digital
    > > signal processing of coherant radar signals to do target motion resolution
    > > for a major DOD test facility. Is that serious enough? Actually, I did the
    > > scientific software support and development for that area of the post
    > > flight data analysis branch.

    >
    > OK, I want to clarify my question because you raise a good point.
    > When I say "serious work" I'm talking about modular business oriented
    > applications and not "specialized" scientific or military
    > applications. Why? Because people still use FORTRAN in scientific
    > legacy applications and COBOL in business mainframe applications
    > somewhere that I'm sure has serious implications (probably the Social
    > Security administration uses COBOL or some variant thereof).
    >
    > So your vote doesn't count Ray, unfortunately.
    >
    > Anybody else?


    HA HA HA!! If you weren't such an idiot, you might realize what a
    dickhead you've demonstrated you are. But of course, you can't see
    that.

    PS Now you've admitted you're a troll, does that mean you're gonna
    FOAD?

  9. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Dec 18, 1:56 pm, raylopez99 wrote:
    > On Dec 17, 10:22 pm, tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    >
    > > ray wrote:
    > > Well, as long as we are talking about specific industries and not just
    > > the specific tasks we worked on, I'll mention that I've used Linux to
    > > developed software for aerospace instrumentation, medical scanning
    > > equipment, embedded automotive computers, medical billing systems,
    > > the banking industry, digital cable television equipment, and
    > > recently even video game controllers.

    >
    > > But really, I did all that on a lark and wouldn't really call it
    > > *serious* use of Linux.

    >
    > Well you're not credible or trying to be funny. What you mention
    > would fill a career of software development, and since you post like a
    > 20 year old, I doubt you've done all or any of that (in your dreams
    > maybe). But, again like my reply to Ray was, all of these
    > applications are "specialized". For example, digital cable TV, video
    > game controllers and medical scanning and possibly aerospace (the
    > first three I'm sure on) are coded often in "C" language, if not
    > assembly language. Does this mean "DOS" and other such primitive OSes
    > are the future? No. It just means that for historic reasons most
    > such hardware was programmed by assembly or C, since these languages
    > are extremely platform dependent as well as performance driven, and
    > many people have stuck to that convention, for better or worse. So
    > again, your answer is not acceptible.


    Oh yeah, and you're the smart guy who didn't know what "Live CD"
    means. And who didn't know what would happen if you clicked on an
    icon that says "Install". Clever, ain't ya??

  10. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    dapunka writes:

    > On Dec 18, 1:56 pm, raylopez99 wrote:
    >> On Dec 17, 10:22 pm, tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    >>
    >> > ray wrote:
    >> > Well, as long as we are talking about specific industries and not just
    >> > the specific tasks we worked on, I'll mention that I've used Linux to
    >> > developed software for aerospace instrumentation, medical scanning
    >> > equipment, embedded automotive computers, medical billing systems,
    >> > the banking industry, digital cable television equipment, and
    >> > recently even video game controllers.

    >>
    >> > But really, I did all that on a lark and wouldn't really call it
    >> > *serious* use of Linux.

    >>
    >> Well you're not credible or trying to be funny. What you mention
    >> would fill a career of software development, and since you post like a
    >> 20 year old, I doubt you've done all or any of that (in your dreams
    >> maybe). But, again like my reply to Ray was, all of these
    >> applications are "specialized". For example, digital cable TV, video
    >> game controllers and medical scanning and possibly aerospace (the
    >> first three I'm sure on) are coded often in "C" language, if not
    >> assembly language. Does this mean "DOS" and other such primitive OSes
    >> are the future? No. It just means that for historic reasons most
    >> such hardware was programmed by assembly or C, since these languages
    >> are extremely platform dependent as well as performance driven, and
    >> many people have stuck to that convention, for better or worse. So
    >> again, your answer is not acceptible.

    >
    > Oh yeah, and you're the smart guy who didn't know what "Live CD"
    > means. And who didn't know what would happen if you clicked on an
    > icon that says "Install". Clever, ain't ya??


    I think it says more about what a dimwit you are that you fell for it
    all. raylopez admits in every line that he is only trolling most of the
    time. He does raise some interesting points though.

  11. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Dec 18, 6:34 am, Bruce Scott TOK Header@[127.1]> wrote:

    > >Followup question: if information cannot travel faster than light,
    > >explain the particle-wave duality of an electron as it passes through
    > >a diffraction grating. How can it be in two places at the same time?

    >
    > Also covered by the sci.physics FAQ
    >
    > >More questions than answers, like in Linux.

    >
    > I don't have time to lecture physics on the Internet...
    >
    >


    Yes, but if you could give an answer to the above, which is unsolved,
    you would win the Nobel Prize. I personally believe in Tachitrons
    (particles that move faster than the speed of light).


    RL

  12. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    > If the point you are trying to make is that most people still use
    > Windows for those sorts of tasks, all I can say is, 'tell us
    > something we don't know'. If you are trying to claim that Linux
    > cannot be used for 'serious' work like running a consulting business,
    > well my experience says otherwise.
    >


    Well I don't believe you, or, in the alternative you are so
    exceptional that you're the exception that proves the rule.

    Anybody else more mainstream?

    RL

  13. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Dec 18, 7:25 am, chrisv wrote:
    > tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    > >raylopez99 wrote:

    >
    > Again I'm amazed that anyone engages this worthless POS troll. You
    > answer him, and he calls you a liar and claims that what you wrote
    > doesn't count. There is no more utterly worthless troll in this
    > group. And that is saying something.


    No, you're more worthless. I stimulate debate and usually am pretty
    close to the truth. You just follow my posts and say "Ray is a
    troll!". Well duh, dumbo, I dun TOLD you I'm a troll, stupid! How
    stupid can you get, stupid?

    RL

  14. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Dec 18, 10:43 am, ray wrote:
    >
    > Which one? It rather seems to be a moving target - e.g. write your docs in
    > ms office 2007 and the folks stuck with office 2003 on xp can't deal with
    > it. It would be much better if folks would indeed adopt standards.


    De facto they have adopted standards Ray--it's called Microsoft. And
    Office 2007 allows you to export to Office 2003 for those poor people
    who have not yet upgraded.

    > > So essentially my OP was a flame (as I trust you realized).

    >
    > Finally, you admit it!!
    >
    >


    I've never denied it, but even a troll can add value. And I have.
    The rest of you just sit around and say "Linux is perfect, no need to
    ever doubt that"--how realistic is that? Not very.

    RL

  15. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On Dec 18, 2:58 pm, Kier wrote:
    > > OK, your 14 year old brother who likes to run kiddie scripts of
    > > viruses online and some unnamed other people.

    >
    > My brother's forty-five and works for one of the biggest tech companies in
    > England. So do his friends. They're all a sight smarter than you.


    OK, fine. You win. But the real world Kier has voted otherwise. You
    and your brother and his friends go on using Linux while the rest of
    the real world moves on. Maybe you can form a Linux Amiga club too
    someday.

    RL

  16. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    On 2007-12-19, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>> Wow! *Amazing. *mysql is a good SQL language though the last version I
    >>>> checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures" (then again,
    >>>> neither does MSFT Access, which I'm working with now).
    >>>
    >>> Postgresql supports stored procedures and much, much more.
    >>>
    >>> On linux you have a choice.

    >>
    >> On Windows, they don't have a choice of databases?

    >
    > Does windows come with a database?


    What's that got to do with it?

  17. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    raylopez99 writes:

    > On Dec 18, 2:58 pm, Kier wrote:
    >> > OK, your 14 year old brother who likes to run kiddie scripts of
    >> > viruses online and some unnamed other people.

    >>
    >> My brother's forty-five and works for one of the biggest tech companies in
    >> England. So do his friends. They're all a sight smarter than you.

    >
    > OK, fine. You win. But the real world Kier has voted otherwise. You
    > and your brother and his friends go on using Linux while the rest of
    > the real world moves on. Maybe you can form a Linux Amiga club too
    > someday.
    >
    > RL


    Kier also works somewhere where I wouldn't last 5 minutes apparently. He
    sure has a lot of good credentials. I believe, too, that his dad could
    beat up my dad. Well, actually I don't since my father was an Army HW
    boxing champion. And now his brothers colleagues are smarter than you!
    Wow!!! Go the advocacy Kier!

  18. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    Tim Smith writes:

    > On 2007-12-19, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >> Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>> Wow! *Amazing. *mysql is a good SQL language though the last version I
    >>>>> checked, v 4.x, did not support "stored procedures" (then again,
    >>>>> neither does MSFT Access, which I'm working with now).
    >>>>
    >>>> Postgresql supports stored procedures and much, much more.
    >>>>
    >>>> On linux you have a choice.
    >>>
    >>> On Windows, they don't have a choice of databases?

    >>
    >> Does windows come with a database?

    >
    > What's that got to do with it?


    My Debian sure didn't. I downloaded it and installed it using
    synaptic. Even easier on Windows

    http://www.wampserver.com/en/

    Not as robust on windows I'll grant you.

  19. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    raylopez99 :
    > On Dec 17, 7:25 pm, ray wrote:
    >>
    >> I use it fairly seriously - I used to use it quite seriously - for digital
    >> signal processing of coherant radar signals to do target motion resolution
    >> for a major DOD test facility. Is that serious enough? Actually, I did the
    >> scientific software support and development for that area of the post
    >> flight data analysis branch.

    >
    > OK, I want to clarify my question because you raise a good point.
    > When I say "serious work" I'm talking about modular business oriented
    > applications and not "specialized" scientific or military
    > applications. Why? Because people still use FORTRAN in scientific
    > legacy applications and COBOL in business mainframe applications
    > somewhere that I'm sure has serious implications (probably the Social
    > Security administration uses COBOL or some variant thereof).
    >
    > So your vote doesn't count Ray, unfortunately.
    >
    > Anybody else?
    >
    > RL


    I wrote and use a point of sale system for an internet cafe and computer
    repair shop on Linux. How's that not count?

    --
    Go work on your website.

    www.websterscafe.com

  20. Re: Who seriously uses Linux here, seriously?

    Hadron wrote:

    > raylopez99 writes:
    >
    >> On Dec 18, 2:58 pm, Kier wrote:
    >>> > OK, your 14 year old brother who likes to run kiddie scripts of
    >>> > viruses online and some unnamed other people.
    >>>
    >>> My brother's forty-five and works for one of the biggest tech companies
    >>> in England. So do his friends. They're all a sight smarter than you.

    >>
    >> OK, fine. You win. But the real world Kier has voted otherwise. You
    >> and your brother and his friends go on using Linux while the rest of
    >> the real world moves on. Maybe you can form a Linux Amiga club too
    >> someday.
    >>
    >> RL

    >
    > Kier also works somewhere where I wouldn't last 5 minutes apparently. He
    > sure has a lot of good credentials. I believe, too, that his dad could
    > beat up my dad. Well, actually I don't since my father was an Army HW
    > boxing champion. And now his brothers colleagues are smarter than you!
    > Wow!!! Go the advocacy Kier!


    Another fine "true linux advocacy post" from the
    "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X
    specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
    professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven" and "time
    coordinator" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian
    O'Leary
    --
    If they were committed to Linux, they'd be developing exclusively for
    Linux. - Funkenbusch 17 Oct 2006


+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast