Nikon FDUtility
in [Scanners]
|
From: Don on 16 Feb 2006 09:05 On 15 Feb 2006 12:34:10 GMT, Marjolein Katsma <nobody(a)example.net> wrote: >>>I'm not locked into any OS/software manufacturer's thinking at alll - >> >> Yes you are because you are not even considering the relational model. > >I did consider teh relational model and rejected it as a poorer "fit" to >how a file system with a nested directory structure works. Because you accepted the hierarchical model up front. That's what "being locked into a design" means! Instead of looking for a truly best design (no holds barred) you limited your considerations to finding a "best fit" for an existing design. >> Indeed, you can't even understand why I mentioned it showing how >> locked you are into the hierarchical MS thinking. > >Indeed I can't. Because hierarchies are not MS' territory only - may OSs >use hierarchical file systems. So what's MS about it?? You're mixing up things. The hierarchies mentioned above are in the context of the registry not a generic discussion. >> Which is all fine but not the point. The context was how bad MS design >> is. Therefore, when looking for alternate designs the last thing a >> good designer does is stay locked in the old paradigm. > >Of course. But I wasn't "looking for alternate designs" at all - I was >looking for the best fit of a database system to *describe* a >hierarchical file system. And that's exactly the problem! >Think about why hierarchical file system are so ubiquituos Because most so-called data base designers are incompetent and/or their superiors got there through the "Peter principle" and don't want to rock the boat. Germans have a saying which loosely translates into: Excrement must taste good because 1 billion flies can't be wrong! Ubiquity and/or popularity are not a sign of quality. Usually, it's quite the opposite i.e. the lowest common denominator which appeals to the numerically superior but intellectually inferior "great unwashed". Don.
From: Surfer! on 16 Feb 2006 10:11 In message <te19v1t8nlhndeinlksltus95dj6im1da3(a)4ax.com>, Don <phoney.email(a)yahoo.com> writes >Instead of looking for a truly best design (no holds barred) you >limited your considerations to finding a "best fit" for an existing >design. There is often no truly best design, and barring some holds is often a good idea so that the final result can be understood by anyone with a less than Einstein IQ. -- Surfer! Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net
From: Marjolein Katsma on 16 Feb 2006 17:40 Don (phoney.email(a)yahoo.com) wrote in news:te19v1t8nlhndeinlksltus95dj6im1da3(a)4ax.com: >>I did consider teh relational model and rejected it as a poorer "fit" >>to how a file system with a nested directory structure works. > > Because you accepted the hierarchical model up front. That's what > "being locked into a design" means! No - I only "accepted" that as a *fact* - the one we're comparing with. I never said that was the best solution. > Instead of looking for a truly best design (no holds barred) you > limited your considerations to finding a "best fit" for an existing > design. I'm not limiting my consideratoions at all. We have a file system and in order for teh discussion want to discuss file systems in terms of database models. It helps to find the best fit for the *current* model first, before discussing a possible model for a new system. I maintain that the best database model to describe a hierarchical file system is a hierarchical database. >>Indeed I can't. Because hierarchies are not MS' territory only - may >>OSs use hierarchical file systems. So what's MS about it?? > > You're mixing up things. The hierarchies mentioned above are in the > context of the registry not a generic discussion. Seems you forgot you were complaining about "Documents and Settings" in the first place; that's not Registry - it's implemented in the file system. >>Of course. But I wasn't "looking for alternate designs" at all - I was >>looking for the best fit of a database system to *describe* a >>hierarchical file system. > > And that's exactly the problem! No, merely a starting point. If you want to discuss file systems in terms of database models you mneed to be able to discuss the current system the same way. >>Think about why hierarchical file system are so ubiquituos > > Because most so-called data base designers are incompetent and/or > their superiors got there through the "Peter principle" and don't want > to rock the boat. I don't think that's the reason (although true ;-)). Hierarchical file systems existed before relational databases existed, let alone were developed enough to be efficient enough to be even considered as a replacement for a system that was very efficient already. If it ain't broke, and all that. :) -- Marjolein Katsma *Help with HomeSite/Studio: http://hshelp.com/ *Travel blog: http://blog.iamback.com/ *Spam reporting addresses: http://banspam.javawoman.com/report3.html
From: Don on 17 Feb 2006 10:30 On 16 Feb 2006 22:40:09 GMT, Marjolein Katsma <nobody(a)example.net> wrote: >> Instead of looking for a truly best design (no holds barred) you >> limited your considerations to finding a "best fit" for an existing >> design. > >I'm not limiting my considerations at all. Well, that's contradictory, then. By your own admission: On 15 Feb 2006 12:34:10 GMT, Marjolein Katsma <nobody(a)example.net> wrote: >I did consider the relational model And yet you're "surprised" when I merely submit the relational model for consideration: On 13 Feb 2006 10:26:44 GMT, Marjolein Katsma <nobody(a)example.net> wrote: >So now I'm even more puzzled why you bring in relational databases That doesn't make any sense! !=> If you yourself considered the relational model, why are you so surprised when I merely submit it for consideration? <=! Do note that I did not recommend it! I just outlined the options. That's all. After which you jumped all over me for even mentioning relational databases going as far as to question my knowledge of the hierarchical model. That was not only way over the top but irrational. >>>Think about why hierarchical file system are so ubiquituos >> >> Because most so-called data base designers are incompetent and/or >> their superiors got there through the "Peter principle" and don't want >> to rock the boat. > >I don't think that's the reason (although true ;-)). Oh, it's not only true but it's *the* reason! And I have "mental scars" to prove it (coming at it from both ends)! ;o) Don.
From: Don on 17 Feb 2006 10:30
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:11:18 +0000, Surfer! <surfer(a)127.0.0.1> wrote: >>Instead of looking for a truly best design (no holds barred) you >>limited your considerations to finding a "best fit" for an existing >>design. > >There is often no truly best design, and barring some holds is often a >good idea so that the final result can be understood by anyone with a >less than Einstein IQ. That's a bit misleading because it mixes the absolute with the relative. However, there always is a best design in either case. Each design is (or, more accurately, should be) a function of its respective context. Therefore, once that context is clearly and comprehensively (!!) defined then there certainly is a best (relative) design for that particular context. On other hand, in a "context-free" environment (i.e. merely in theory) there is also a best (absolute) design. The key, as always, is context. (Note the quotes around "context-free" i.e. a lack of any specific context is also context!) However, all that is very generic and not relevant in the context (sic) in which I mentioned relational databases merely as an option to be considered without a qualitative assessment or recommendation. Don. |