Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming Software Linux IT Technology

Trail of Tears: MySQL, ODBC, & OpenOffice 1.0 352

Posted by Hemos from the getting-it-all-working dept.
Joe Barr writes " I found a wonderful "how-to" piece called "OpenOffice.org 1.0, ODBC and MySQL," by John McCreesh. In the introduction, McCreesh writes about OpenOffice.org 1.0's "best kept secret" -- that secret being the fact that hidden away inside, completely unknown to most OpenOffice users, is a user-friendly front end for databases that is "a Microsoft Access (and more) equivalent." That may be so, but there is a very good reason why it's a secret: it's too damn hard getting OpenOffice and ODBC wired up correctly."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trail of Tears: MySQL, ODBC, & OpenOffice 1.0 More

Trail of Tears: MySQL, ODBC, & OpenOffice 1.0

Comments Filter:

  • Something open source? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:19PM (#5271017)
    Hard to set up?! Never!

  • Not a 'secret' (Score:2, Informative)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 )
    Its mentioned in the documentation, but agreed its a pain, and not fully documented, yet.

    I think they are waiting until reporting is done to truely 'support' it..

  • Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BoomerSooner ( 308737 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:24PM (#5271062) Homepage Journal
    The "journalist" who wrote the article said his friend was having a hard time getting MySQL, OpenOffice and Linux (Suse) to work. He then lists that his friend can 1) network computers 2) make anything work in DOS and Windows and 3) simply installed the RPMs.

    I'm not sure what the hell qualifies this guy to be able to do much of anything in Linux much less tie MySQL to OO via ODBC.

    • Uh, he's a Linuxworld columnist? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by yoz ( 3735 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:39PM (#5271172) Homepage
      Two points:

      1: The writer of the piece, talking about his install troubles, is a Linuxworld columnist. Now, this may not give them kernel-developer-like skills, but...

      2: ... how leet should Linux users be before they can install an MS Access equivalent? On Windows, you can do it with a few clicks. It sounds like you want the Linux equivalent to come with a 10-page exam.

      -- Yoz

      • Re:Uh, he's a Linuxworld columnist? (Score:5, Funny)

        by sporty ( 27564 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:00PM (#5271345) Homepage

        It sounds like you want the Linux equivalent to come with a 10-page exam.


        4 pages max. Unless it was an essay.

      • Re:Uh, he's a Linuxworld columnist? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by j_kenpo ( 571930 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:01PM (#5271364)
        I agree with you totally on both points. If the guy is a Linuxworld columnist, he probably has at least a basic understanding of the technical side of Linux and Linux app installs (there's not telling really, since he is a columnist, and in my opinion the old saying about those who cant teach applies more to columnist than to teachers these days). With that being said, if someone who has at least a basic understanding of Linux has that much difficulty installing something like this, than "Joe Sixpack" isn't going to be able to figure it out either. But this goes into the age old problem with Linux on the desktop, do the developers keep the mentality of "If you don't like it, fix it yourself, its open source", or do they take the mentality of "Well, I can figure it out, and the next developer can figure it out, but can the average person figure it out?" Once OS developers look at it in the later fashion, then we will start seeing real gains as far as usability. IMHO, that's the difference between Computer Science graduates and Information Systems graduates, one sees things in the more technical side, the other sees it in the usability (business wise, if its easier to use and provides functionality, then its more marketable) side. And ill make the assumption that most OS developers are CS people. Id be interested to hear others opinions on this.

        • Re:Uh, he's a Linuxworld columnist? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by smillie ( 30605 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:20PM (#5271530) Journal
          When I was doing coding one of the most difficult things to find was a newbie who was willing to let me watch them use my new program. I could learn a lot by watching someone do something "intuitive" and my code wouldn't behave as they expected. Each time I modified the user interface I had to find a new newbie because the old ones now had preconceived ideas on how it worked. The next problem was that one person wasn't a very large sample. As a normal geed I didn't have all that many friends to draw on.
        • "Joe Sixpack" isn't going to be able to figure it out either

          I agree that it should be simpler to set up, but does Joe Sixpack really need to be designing databases?

          • Re:Uh, he's a Linuxworld columnist? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by j_kenpo ( 571930 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:39PM (#5271692)
            "I agree that it should be simpler to set up, but does Joe Sixpack really need to be designing databases?"

            Absolutly, if Joe Sixpack works for a small freight, delivery or trucking company and needs to keep a small database of shipping, customers, destinations, and other small business related matters. Ive seen plenty of smaller companies (1 to 2 offices and handfull of employees) who do this with Access (mostly by means of the pre-built databases and templates, or a consultant/tech set one up for them). This is my point right here, instead of the "why would they" or the "should they be" mind set, it should be percieved from the "Ok, they are going to, so how can I make it easier for them".
    • I guess the same thing that qualifies the average suit to be able to do this on a Windows box. (ie, the suit can get it to work)

      Common, I though the whole goal of OpenOffice, KDE, etc was to be "just like Windows".

      No this is not flamebait, I'm a Linux freak. But I'm just trying to make a point.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chazmyrr ( 145612 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:45PM (#5271231)
      You're right. The guy hasn't paid his dues. He hasn't spent days poring over man pages. He hasn't spent hours trying to recompile his kernel to get it to recognize his NIC. He probably doesn't even know how to use xf86config.

      Then again, maybe the point was you shouldn't have to be a wizard to get an office suite to talk to an odbc datasource. Maybe the point was that real people trying to do real work don't want to be a sysadmin. They just want to get their work done.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 )
      > 3) simply installed the RPMs.
      >
      > I'm not sure what the hell qualifies this guy to be able to do much of anything in Linux much less tie MySQL to OO via ODBC.

      Yeah! Stupid fucking luzer! He heard that "RPMs" were packages you "installed". So he installed them!

      What a fucking luser. He's not worthy of running MySQL with an office package via ODBC.

      He's, like, such a fucking luser, he's only qualified to... umm... click SETUP.EXE and install MS Access and MS Office, which, umm... oh...

      ...look. We were just kidding all along. Some people have taken that to mean that this is using spreadsheets hooked into live databases to solve engineering or business problems.

      It's not. It's about using a cool technology (MySQL) and another cool technoogy (Open Office) and a third cool technology (ODBC), and, like, who cares if only the developers on the project can get it to work. Getting it to work - scratching that itch - is what counts. Once we've got it working, we can go on to playing with the next shiny thing.

      If it's about using the software, just use that Microsoft crap. What's that? You say that even though it's crap, at least you can install it in 20 minutes and start doing your business or engineering problems with it? Geez, it's always about you, isn't it?

      • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yodaNO@SPAMetoyoc.com> on Monday February 10, 2003 @02:43PM (#5272299) Homepage Journal
        Well actually this is the last tool I needed to completely cut loose from MS office. I run a database of Volunteers for a large folk festival. Every year I have to send out several mailings to about 1000 people at a time. To automate the process, I shoot out mailing labels in Access. I tried writing my own mailing list program, but frankly I have a database to run. I've written my share of drivers to know that if a canned product will do it for you USE IT.

        Now I use OpenOffice religiously, and MySQL (what the present database is written in.) The only reason my Viao still has a Windows partion is for printing the labels. Okay, that and Civ. This is gravy. This is soooo cooool. My head is stuffed with applications for this integration. Must stop posting and start coding...

    • Congratulations, you're the reason Linux will never make it on the desktop.

  • Secret? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:24PM (#5271066) Journal
    Yes, it may be unknown to most users, but that doesn't mean it's hidden any more than most features in Office.

    Anyway, AFAIK a better (non-ODBC) MySQL driver for openoffice.org has been up there on their to-do list [openoffice.org] for quite some time.

    So why not scratch that itch instead?

    • Re:Secret? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mr. Smoove ( 160347 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:49PM (#5271256)
      It has been completed and is ready for inclusion in the next release of OOo (1.1) - the beta of which is due out towards the end of this month.

    • Re:Secret? ( Adabas ) (Score:4, Informative)

      by Locutus ( 9039 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:20PM (#5271528)
      It's probably not unknown to those who've use the StarOffice v5.x database ( Adabas = SoftwareAG ). Granted, OO doesn't have the ODBC driver for that free Adabas database but if you've got the SO v5.x CDROM, you've got the driver.

      It's working fine here.

      BTW, it might not be well known that the database shipped with Sun's StarOffice 5.2( Adabas ) can be run as a multi-client database if you start the server on the right port. Here's a startup script:

      x_server -p 7200
      sleep 1
      x_start dbaseName
      sleep 2
      xutil -d dbaseName -u control,user-passwd restart

      StarOffice and OpenOffice just need to know where the file "./lib/odbclib.so" is. IIRC

      LoB

  • MySQL, ODBC, OpenOffice haikus (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:24PM (#5271067)
    Install MySQL?
    Better get support contract
    Config files scattered

    ODBC's pow'r
    Links data hither and yon
    Like many silkworms

    Free office software
    Fighting forces from Redmond
    Freedom is power

    Relevant comments
    Readers like them, yes they do
    Thoughtful minds welcomed

    Lame haikus you say?
    OK bub, then write your own
    Not so easy, huh?

  • Trail of Tears? (Score:5, Informative)

    by mr100percent ( 57156 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:25PM (#5271081) Homepage Journal
    Hey, I wouldn't use "Trail of Tears" as the headline.

    The Trail of Tears was the forced emigration of Native Americans from the South to Oaklahoma. It was brutal and painful, and something that Americans don't like to talk about.

    "In one of the saddest episodes of our brief history, men, women, and children were taken from their land, herded into makeshift forts with minimal facilities and food, then forced to march a thousand miles(Some made part of the trip by boat in equally horrible conditions). Under the generally indifferent army commanders, human losses for the first groups of Cherokee removed were extremely high... About 4000 Cherokee died as a result of the removal. The route they traversed and the journey itself became known as "The Trail of Tears" or, as a direct translation from Cherokee, "The Trail Where They Cried" ("Nunna daul Tsuny"). "

    • Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm glad to see someone beat me to make this point.

      Honestly, I'm no monster of political correctness (lifelong Republican, in fact) but "Trail of Tears" over configuring MySQL? Come on, folks.

    • Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by monadicIO ( 602882 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:40PM (#5271181)
      I'm no troll, and have nothing against the native Americans, and have no intention of making light of their sufferings.
      However, why does everyone have to be sensitive to everything that might offend anyone?
      I find the political correctness thing is now as bad as censorship - there are no laws against saying things, but you'll be demonized for the rest of your life for having said them.
      I'm sure one day some PC guy will come along and ask us not to use C because controllers written in C were used in some bomber aircrafts (or something like that).

      • Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by blaine ( 16929 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:51PM (#5271273)
        Eh. On the one hand, yes, political correctness sucks.

        On the other hand, comparing the configuration problems inherent to OpenOffice with the Trail of Tears is pretty obnoxious. I mean, what next, "Linux Networking: 9/11 All Over Again"?

        I really don't think this is a case of being overly politically correct. It's more that the author of the article used an entirely inappropriate title, given the subject. Comparing computer configuration problems with the death of thousands is, well, shitty.
      • However, why does everyone have to be sensitive to everything that might offend anyone?

        Because (1) it's not nice to offend people and (2) it's important to understand that offense is in the eye of the offended, not the offender.

        If you are not strange, you wouldn't like it if I walked up to your mother and called her a two-dollar whore. It's not censorship to suggest that this is a bad idea, it's common decency.

        I imagine you're not part of a culture where flip references to your history can be offensive, but there are people who are and it's just common decency to not be a jerk to those people, especially when a similar phrase would do just fine (Path of pain, tutorial of terror, whatever :)

        No one's going to ask you not to use C, there's a clear differentiation between the tool and the motivation of the user in your example. But it wouldn't be out of line to ask a software project to change it's name if it were genuinely offensive.

        People who complain about political correctness, in my experience, complain because they say such awful things, for instance, they'll say "this may not be politically correct, but" then tell a mean-spirited N-word joke or the like.

        There's the caricature version of political correctness (vertically challenged, etc.), and then there's common decency- too often people engaging in the latter are viciously attacked for engaging in the former.

        • Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by plague3106 ( 71849 )
          (1) it's not nice to offend people

          How about this nice little thing i like to call 'getting over it.' People are WAY too easily offended nowadays. I'm going to speak my mind, and if that offends you, well i'm sorry but thats your problem, not mine. the world is not a nice place.

        • it's important to understand that offense is in the eye of the offended, not the offender.

          NO NO NO!! Sorry to come off so strongly, but this is completely and TOTALLY wrong.

          You cannot define offense by who is offended, because you can ALWAYS find someone who is offended by ANYTHING.

          The rational point of view is looking at the intent of what someone is saying. I'm particularly reminded of someone who was fired [adversity.net] for using the word "niggardly" in a staff meeting! A black person was offended, even though the word has absolutely nothing to do with the word "nigger", and the person was forced to resign. Is this really the world you want where the idiots who get offended decide who gets lynched (word used intentionally)?

          • You cannot define offense by who is offended, because you can ALWAYS find someone who is offended by ANYTHING.

            So? That doesn't mean they're not really offended. But let's face it, some offenses are worse than others. You want to make it sound like words are completely neutral, but they're not.

            My goal is not to offend no one, but to minimize offense where possible.

            The rational point of view is looking at the intent of what someone is saying.

            But intent is not always conscious, and in fact not always relevant. People don't usually directly mean hurtful things by making gay jokes, but they create a hurtful atmosphere by perpetuating them. Just because you're not hurt by something doesn't mean others aren't. You are not a linguistic island.

            Furthermore, announcing that something is the "rational point of view" kind of begs the question of whether what you're about to say is correct, doesn't it? Especially when precisely what we're discussing is differing points of view.

            I'm particularly reminded of someone who was fired [adversity.net] for using the word "niggardly" in a staff meeting! A black person was offended, even though the word has absolutely nothing to do with the word "nigger"

            This was a tough case. The words do sound an awful lot like each other, even though you correctly imply that their etymologies seem to differ. If I were an intelligent racist (how I wish that were a simple oxymoron), I would realize that I could say a lot of the things I mean without actually saying them.

            It turns out, I wouldn't mind at all if the word niggardly were used less because, as your example demonstrates, it is more effective at creating confusion than at connoting that someone is cheap. It's an archaic word and is obviously ripe for misinterpretation.

            Words don't exist in a vacuum. Every word communicated requires both a speaker and a listener, and they both have to do the job of interpreting those words. It is rude to ignore the likely interpretation of the listener when there is a less encumbered turn of phrase available.

            • So? That doesn't mean they're not really offended. But let's face it, some offenses are worse than others. You want to make it sound like words are completely neutral, but they're not.

              Words ARE completely neutral, but intent is not. For example, black people use the word "nigger" between themselves all the time without giving offense. It's the context and intent that gives offense.

              But intent is not always conscious, and in fact not always relevant.

              But it's *exactly* relevent. The key point that I think you're missing is that being offended is entirely voluntary. Take gay jokes -- some gay people will be offended, and others won't. That means that the people being offended chose to be offended.

              It simply is not and should not be my concern whether someone has some sort of mental problems that will misinterpret my intentions. Now, if someone is close to me and I know they are particularly sensitive to something, then I may out of politeness decide to avoid those terms. But it is absolutely not my responsibility to watch my language on the off-chance that someone might choose -- possibly intentionally -- to misinterpret me.

              It's an archaic word and is obviously ripe for misinterpretation.

              Perhaps, but doesn't it baldly demonstrate that certain people are LOOKING to be offended? Once the word is explained, then why would there be any further controversy?

              And where do I stop? Do I not use the word "dastardly" around someone born out of wedlock because it sounds like "bastardly"? Do I never use the word "God" because it might offend an atheist? Do I not mention that I bought some "spic-and-span" around Italian people? And let's not even get into the absolute stupidity of terms like "differently abled" rather than handicapped (and yes, I use the latter word proudly).

              The insanity will never stop, and I refuse to be held hostage to people who will take offense at anything I say. I say again, the ONLY measure that has to matter is intent.

              I were an intelligent racist (how I wish that were a simple oxymoron), I would realize that I could say a lot of the things I mean without actually saying them.

              Exactly. It's the intent that matters. People generally know when someone is trying to insult them. The words are irrelevent. In fact, just a look can insult someone. It's the intent of the look that counts.

      • Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:5, Informative)

        by feed_me_cereal ( 452042 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:02PM (#5271377)
        However, why does everyone have to be sensitive to everything that might offend anyone?

        I don't know about all situations, but some assholes sailing over to your country and making you march to your death doesn't seem that comparable to the hassle of setting up open-office. So why is mentioning the significance of the trail of tears a bad thing? At worst, someone gets educated.

        I find the political correctness thing is now as bad as censorship

        How is it any different from correcting or offering a dissenting opinion? People are allowed to voice their opinion about things, even about what speech they find offensive. By your logic, critique is censorship just because people will be afraid of being critiqued and therefore not speak. That's BS. You're responsible for the things you say, whether you like it or not.

        I'm sure one day some PC guy will come along and ask us not to use C because controllers written in C were used in some bomber aircrafts (or something like that)

        Well then that PC guy is a moron and we can all laugh at him (allong with any cowards who actually bend to his will). It's a far cry from pointing out a comparison between installing OSS and mass-murder. Don't oversimplyfy political correctness. You're just as bad as the "PC freaks" you malign.

        • Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Slime-dogg ( 120473 )

          How is it any different from correcting or offering a dissenting opinion?

          Because you can get fired from your job for saying the "Un-PC" statement. With Political Correctness, you are no more free than the citizens of Communist Russia. There you couldn't speak your mind because you might end up in prison. Here, it's a slightly different story. You can't speak your mind (or even make a mistake in speech) without being crucified by society.

          Atlantic Monthly had a nice list of words that have been stricken from school textbooks. Among them were 'Yacht' and 'Cassandra.' 'Yacht' was banned because it was "descriminant against non-wealthy persons," and 'Cassandra' was banned because it's "sexist."

          Can anyone tell me how all this shit got to the rediculous level it is at right now? We have some froppish, underfed, vegetarian, neo-leftist leech telling the people of America which words are appropriate and which ones aren't! It is 100% pure, unadulturated bullshit, and you all know it.

          All that aside, PC speech doesn't really fit into things of a really sensitive nature. It takes a lot of balls and insensitivity to make jokes about the holocaust, mostly because it just wasn't funny. The Trail of Tears was also a very serious matter, and thus should only be used when referring to the actual event.

          Now, persuasive speech promotes the use of extremes, but that's where common sense comes into play. If there's a guy who doesn't have enough sense not to name a computer configuration article after an event that stands for unjust death, an informing of the seriousness is in order. It is inappropriate, however, to censor him, axe the article, or socially crucify him. Some people are just stupid.

      • it's about respecting the dead.

      • Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by extra88 ( 1003 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:32PM (#5271625)
        It's a poor use of language. "Trail of Tears" has a very specific meaning which is way beyond the sentiment they're trying to convey (which any U.S.-ian should know but probably doesn't since we're so ignorant of history). Exaggeration is fine but this is taking it to an extreme. You might as well go all the way and call the article "MySQL, ODBC, & OpenOffice 1.0, a Configruation Holocaust." Actually that might not be as bad because "Holocaust" is qualified with an adjective which indicates its scope. No, it still sucks.

        Powerful words should be used carefully, otherwise their glib use leaves our language impoverished and trivialized.
        • Did anyone else see the sentance:

          Powerful words should be used carefully, other wise their glib use leaves our language impoverished and trivialized.

          and wonder what g-lib has to do with a conversation on the Trail of Tears? Perhaps I've been coding too long.

      • I wouldn't be upset because it's offensive; It's allegory, man, allegory! (With apologies to Trudeau.) But I would be upset because it's simply not that hard. Saying walking home with sweaty boxers giving you a crotch rash, THAT is a trail of tears, or perhaps a nature trail to hell. But this, well, this is a doddle.

      • Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:52PM (#5271821) Homepage
        Political Correctness is a problem - sometimes. But in this case, it is at a level higher than PC. Perhaps because we never again want to see another people go through what our people have been through.

        To a Native American like myself, to compare a great human tradgedy to your problems with an incomplete piece software is insulting. It trivializes the death of much of my people and the death of our entire way of life and culture. It's just a bad analogy.

        C is a tool. The person programming the bomber is a toolmaker. The pilot is alas a soldier following orders, the orders come from a government, and that government exists at the privelidge of the people it serves.

      • It's not offensive because of p.c.-ity... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by for(;;); ( 21766 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @02:52PM (#5272373)
        it's offensive because the two things are of totally different proportion. (Frankly, calling Bill Gates a Nazi is the same way.) This article's title is like naming your Cisco Router "The Auswitch" because you don't dig the restrictive interface; or equating the VCR with the Boston Strangler.

        The Cherokee Nation had a bicameral legislature, newspapers, and cities. This was a full nation that Andrew Jackson forcibly expelled to Oklahoma. Comparing this ethnic cleansing to one's ODBC setup bugaboos is shit-headed.

        Hey, I'm not saying whoever wrote this shouldn't be allowed to say it. But neither should that person be kept from derision, like a darling little prince. Whoever thought up the title of this article is a cockmaster. Deal with it.
    • Thanks for the information. I'm a Brit working in America and my American history is poor to say the least. I'm not sure that the editor who wrote the headline intended this to be an offensive headline, though. I've used "Trail of tears" as a general comment for any hard task in the past.

      Dr Fish

  • Not released... because not ready ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:26PM (#5271095) Homepage
    Sure its there, but it isn't pushed. Is this because

    a) The developers don't know about it
    b) They don't want you to know about it
    c) They don't think its ready yet
    d) Cowboy Neal.

    Now Slashdot have as ever gone for d. But my hunch says c.

    Alternate story if they had been pushing it. "OpenOffice Access clone is a pile of shite"
    • Based on my quick testing with it (by loading up PostgreSQL ODBC drivers on Win XP & connecting to a linux box), it isn't pushed because it locks up OpenOffice. I dunno if that's due to ODBC or OO, but I wouldn't count it as usable yet.

      BTW, I didn't see any form designer in there (but I didn't really look). Until it has that, it isn't really an Access Clone, only a frontend GUI to databases. Not that that's a bad thing, though...

      • it isn't really an Access Clone, only a frontend GUI to databases

        Right on the money there. I cannot believe the under-estimation of Access I see when people look for it's Linux alternative. By far the majority of work with Access that I've seen is input form development and report creation. These are the parts that Access users use most. They are it's strong points. They are (in my opinion) what Access is for.

        An OpenOffice-driven independently-deployable Access replacement is what Linux needs and it is what will advance it's use on the business desktop.

      • Re:Not released... because not ready ? (Score:4, Informative)

        by dmaxwell ( 43234 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @02:44PM (#5272318)
        It only locks up OO if you use the Data Sources Autopilot. There is also an Access like explorer interface (click on the Data Sources button in the spreadsheet sidebar. If the data is dragged from there into a document it works fine. It's still not good though as I didn't realize there was any way other than the Autopilot to do it for quite awhile.

  • Long live redhat quality assurance as usual (Score:5, Informative)

    by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:30PM (#5271117) Homepage
    All the stuff the author describes works out of the box without compiling anything, rebuilding anything or even reconfiguring anything on Debian. You just start OO and configure the data source. Even on redhat you do not need to recompile anything. You need: 1. To replace the crap RedHat 8 ships for MySQL with the RPM from MySQL (no need to rebuild). 2. You have to install mysql-shared which redhat for some reason puts into the devel section. It is actually a required rpm to use MySQL from any local app. 3. You need to install unixodbc rpms and the myodbc rpms (as long as you have working MySQL, redhat ones will do). 4. The postinstall script under redhat for the mysql ODBC driver does not register the driver. You need to register it yourself using the odbcinst utilities. Or copy a working odbcinst.ini from Debian After that you start OO and it works. And under debian dselect will actually do all this for you after you have selected myODBC from the package list.
    • I'm not sure what the big problem is with RedHat 8 & openoffice. I have the stock rh8 install of openoffice accessing both mysql and postgresql ( both stock rh8 rpms ) through odbc ( again the stock rh8 odbc rpm ). There are some annoyances with redhat if one tries to get it to talk to a database using jdbc but mysql & odbc is not a problem. Now, getting openoffice & ldap to work together-- that's a bit more difficult.
    • For an easy to install Debian, try Knoppix [knopper.net], which can be run without installation from the CD, or it can be installed to your harddrive as is traditionally done with operating systems. Note that EVERYTHING will be automatically detected and configured, from your sound card to graphics card to ethernet adapter.

      Knoppix is a easy to install Debian. Debian is an easy to use Linux. That makes Knoppix one hell of an operating system! The only drawback is that Knoppix only runs on the x86 platforms at the moment... which is very un-Debian.

  • or JDBC (Score:3, Informative)

    by Brian Blessed ( 258910 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:32PM (#5271125)
    A while ago I used a JDBC driver with OpenOffice's database component and for a small DB it was a useful way of making the tables available to a desktop user.

    Brian.

  • The short-short version (Score:5, Informative)

    by cyberkreiger ( 463962 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:38PM (#5271168) Homepage
    1. Install mysql
    2. Install mysql odbc drivers
    3. Install unixodbc, failing to give the correct paths to ./configure
    4. Find out why unixodbc is looking for files in the wrong paths and use hackish workarounds.
    5. Exhaustion!

      1. Yeah, that was real hard. Sure, it's not a simple one-click-installation, but at least i regularly install software that require a much more involving build-process, and i at least make sure to give the correct options to ./configure. This is more of a How-not-to than a How-to.

        For example, instead of whining about how unixodbc expected to find configuration files in /usr/local/etc, he should have used ./configure --sysconfdir=/etc and noted from ./configure --help that the default is PREFIX/etc, which it almost always is when using a configure-script.

  • Joe Barr is an idiot who cannot use Linux! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr. Smoove ( 160347 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:42PM (#5271203)
    Let me demonstrate:

    The title is incorrect, OpenOffice is not the name of the software, that trademark is held by a different company. It is OpenOffice.org.

    This doc has existed for almost a year - Joe Barr is really on the cutting edge!

    "too damn hard" - well if you can't follow a simple guide or auto-pilot...

    Does this muppet sound familiar? Following this link for more Joe Barr fun:
    http://mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/users_against_devel opers. html#barr

    I've had enough of this guy, I'm getting off this topic...

  • MySQL is not a database (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cruachan ( 113813 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:46PM (#5271247)
    It's a collection of indexed files that is excellent for some purposes - I use it myself on some projects - but it's not an RDBMS in any real sense of the word. Of course Access isn't a heavyweight database either, but given the alternatives of trusting even mildly complex and important office data to MySQL or Access then there's simply no contest.

    I seem to be having this argument more and more of late. MySQL seems to have been responsible for a blurring of the definitions of what constitutes an RDBMS is and what is desirable in a database environment. Recently culminated at a clients office with the new 'gee wizz' 22 year old 'programmer' about the benefits of MySQL vs SQLServer/Oracle/DB2

    New Kid: But MySQL is open source and really fast.

    Me: Stored procedures solve a lot of speed issues

    New Kid: Don't see why you need them. MySQL is open source and really fast.

    Me: You need to build in relational integrity rules to ensure your database is maintainable over time.

    New Kid: Don't see why you need them. MySQL is open source and really fast.

    Me: Subselects?

    New Kid: Don't see why you need that. MySQL is open source and really fast.

    Me: Transactions?

    New Kid: Don't see why you need them. MySQL is open source and really fast. And MySQL is bolting those on anyway.

    Me: Logging? Recovery?

    New Kid: Don't see why you need that. MySQL is open source and really fast.

    At which point I gave up. New Kid's going to have to learn the hard way. And yes, I know MySQL is adding features and one day will be a grown up database, but until it supports all the essential RDBMS features then to pretend that it's some software holy grail just because it's Open Source and Really Fast does no-one any favours.

    • Re:MySQL is not a database (Score:5, Informative)

      by ChiefArcher ( 1753 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:52PM (#5271279) Homepage Journal
      Mysql 4.1.0 supports:
      Transactions and subselects

      and as for relational integrity,

      3.23.44 and up, InnoDB tables support checking of foreign key constraints.

      ChiefArcher

      • Re:MySQL is not a database (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cruachan ( 113813 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:09PM (#5271445)
        Yes, I know it's improving, and I hope it continues to do so. I used it recently for the back-end to a distributed internet application I client needed and I was impressed because it's Really Fast.

        But an RDBMS? No way. As someone mentioned above what about views?, replication?, triggers? I've never needed to looked at the security features but are we supporting grants, revokes, groups and all that stuff yet? is locking at record level yet?

        Don't get me wrong, what I'm knocking is *not* MySQL. Wonderful product really. What's the problem is this attitude that MySQL is manner from heaven and the answer to commerical RDBMS's in all circumstances because it's Open Source and Really Fast.
        • RDBMS stands for Relational DataBase Management Server, right? Let's take a look. Is it a database? Any collection of information is a database. Is it relational? It most certainly is relational. Is it a management system? Yes, it allows you to make SQL queries and retrieve a subset of the information, therefore it is a management system.

          MySQL is a RDBMS. The fact that it lacks certain (admittedly very important) features doesn't make it not a RDBMS; it makes it a rather more limited RDBMS than, say, Oracle, or even Postgres. However, it IS really fast, and it's getting more features over time. Doubtless one day it will support more than one-way replication (which it does in 4.x) and stored procedures and several other things which separate it from an "enterprise-class" RDBMS.

          • Re:MySQL is not a database (Score:4, Interesting)

            by cruachan ( 113813 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:51PM (#5271819)
            I used postgres too for a small project some time back. Very nice system indeed, I'd certainly be prepared to use that in anger.

            However why is it that postgres is so poorly supported among ISPs? I support several Cold Fusion systems and as that's now available on Linux it'd be really nice port these to run against postgres instead of SQLServer. It's solve the licencing expense of SQLServer without sacrificing too much database functionality (if any).
        • MySQL supports -

          - transactions
          - grant tables(with grants and revokes to users and groups)
          - replication
          - foreign keys
          - subselects(latest version)
          - logging
          - record and table level locking
          - full-text indexing

          still does not support -
          - triggers(a dangerous tool IMO, unless you are closely keeping track of all your triggers, in which case you might as well have your application do this with an extra line of SQL)

          - stored procedures (coming, but also another thing easily handled at the application level)

          - views (not a big deal really.)

          Bottom line: for 90% of the databases out there, Oracle or DB2 is overkill, and MySQL would work just fine. MySQL can easily handle databases that have millions of rows and hundreds of tables. However, if you need some sort of vendor guarantee that their product will ensure that your multi-million dollar database stays intact, by all means use one of the big guys because obviously its worth it. In all other cases, if you have an admin who knows what he is doing(i.e. is a step ahead of those who spew the "MySQL is not an RDBMS" line of bullshit) you'll be just fine.
      • For that matter, transactions have been supported ever since BDB tables were added (somewhere in early/mid 3.23, more than a year ago). Same for replication. Logging and recovery since at least 3.22. The only features mentioned that aren't yet in a stable release are sub-selects (in 4.1) and stored procedures (for 5.0). Obviously someone has been too busy repeating the same argument to bother checking the current state of the art...
      • Yeah, and right now we're chasing a bug where MySQL completely locks up after some heavy usage by our app. No other database does it, and there seems to be no warning or anything.

        MySQL works, sometimes.

    • Always been my view. Anything where you're doing straight selects, occasional updates/deletes, and it's often 'as opposed to putting it in a text file anyway' then go with MySQL, and hey, install a second one and do replication on different computer.

      But, lets face it, a lot of people use a database where they don't need a database; they need an indexed list of attributes. Great. That's why MySQL is for. But e-commerce? Nope. A catalog? Sure.

    • Introduce him to PostgreSQL. It's opensource too, and has these features (enforcement of referential integrity, views, transactions etc.)

    • Re:MySQL is not a database (Score:4, Interesting)

      by evilpenguin ( 18720 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:44PM (#5271758)
      Esp. when PostgreSQL is Open Source, fast, and does all these things a "real" RDBMS does. The only question that is unknown to me is scaling PostgreSQL up to "Oracle-size" installs. Not that building massive Oracle apps is easy to get right either, but in my career I've worked on massive Oracle, Sybase, and good-ol' mainframe-backends that were huge (Minnesota Dept. of Revenue Sales Tax system, ferinstance). The biggest PostgreSQL system I've worked on was to backend a JSP-based production floor automation system. < 100 tables, largest table < 500,000 rows. So, I know it works, works well, and has the features I wanted at the time. But replication, failover, distributed data, etc. It may have those, but I haven't had occasion to go looking for them. Its coolest feature is its "multiversion concurrency control," which basically eliminates thread blocking for db writes. Nice.

      Don't be too hard on the "new kid." He'll find his limitations in due course. And in the meantime, his naievete may lead him to find solutions you cant see anymore through your experience.

      The world needs both reactionaries and radicals. Either without the other spells disaster.

  • what about Triggers and Stored Procedures? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HealYourChurchWebSit ( 615198 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:47PM (#5271250) Homepage
    I've created some pretty useful stuff with MySQL, but if I'm thinking of supporting an office enterprise, I needs crap like Triggers, Stored Procedures and Replication. Views would be nice (yes, I know it's planned for Version 5 [mysql.com] but if I'm going to expose my core database using ODBC, or even OLE DB, I think I might want some of the aforementioned mechanisms to keep my poor users from shooting themselves in the foot [healyourch...ebsite.com].

    Still, I'm glad to see such a how-to such as the one mentioned in the article. For some of my less critical projects, such as web sites for charities and schools, I can see how this might be very helpful for taking care of data-driven sites -- even if its on an IIS server.

  • Nitpicking... (Score:5, Informative)

    by sporty ( 27564 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:54PM (#5271288) Homepage

    Bummer! Another error! This time, OpenOffice was complaining that it couldn't find libodbc.so. I believe the how-to covered this gotcha, so I simply copied libodbc.so from /usr/local/lib to /usr/lib.


    Ug, what a bad solution. Nice attempt.

    1. It doesn't explain why /usr/local/lib/ was used
    2. You made a copy of a lib. If someday, /usr/local/lib is added to the lib path, and you have to upgrade it, this can cause problems.

    It woul dhave been better to adjust your lib path. /usr/local is there for a reason, for that stuff you add on your OS, right? If we are going through the entire installation process, why make silly decissions :)
  • http://mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/users_against_developers. html#barr

    Joe Barr

    Joe Barr became infamous by writing a less than favorable MPlayer review. He found MPlayer hard to install, but then again he is not very fond of reading documentation. He also concluded that the developers were unfriendly and the documentation incomplete and insulting. You be the judge. He went on to mention MPlayer negatively in his 10 Linux predictions for 2002 In a followup review of xine he continued stirring up controversy. Ironically at the end of that article he quotes his exchange with Günter Bartsch, the original author of xine, that perfectly summarizes the whole situation:

    However, he also went on to say that he was "surprised" by my column about MPlayer and thought it was unfair, reminding me that it is a free software project. "If you don't like it," Bartsch said, "you're free not to use it."

    He does not reply to our mails. His editor does not reply to our mails. Here are some quotes from different people about Joe Barr, so you can form your own opinion:

    Marc Rassbach has something to say about the man.

    You may all remember the LinuxWorld 2000, when he claimed that Linus T said that 'FreeBSD is just a handful of programmers'. Linus said NOTHING of the sort. When Joe was called on this, his reaction was to call BSD supporters assholes and jerks.

    A quote from Robert Munro on the mplayer-users mailing list:

    He's interesting, but not good at avoiding, um... controversy. Joe Barr used to be one of the regulars on Will Zachmann's Canopus forum on Compuserve, years ago. He was an OS/2 advocate then (I was an OS/2 fan too).

    He used to go over-the-top, flaming people, and I suspect he had some hard times, then. He's mellowed some, judging by his columns recently. Moderately subtle humor was not his mode in those earlier days, not at all.
  • Just tried OpenOffice on Windows via a "slow" ODBC link to an SQLServer database. A trivial select returning one row took 12 seconds the first time and 1.5 seconds thereafter. Just to get to the "friendly" front-end took quite some navigation through non-obvious screens. Tried a Windows tool, WinSQL, the same query takes about half a second, and the tool is extremely easy to use: enter ODBC link, type SQL commands.

    Now, I use OpenOffice for all my documents and spreadsheets and most drawings, but I would never ever consider using it for database access. The functions in there look like they have been added as an afterthought to the (presumably necessary) work of integrating a datasource for bibliographies and (?) mail merges.

    I am not surprised it's a hassle under Linux...

  • 1.0? Please, that's so 6 months ago. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Limburgher ( 523006 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @12:59PM (#5271338) Homepage Journal
    I use OO 1.0.1. Bleeding edge, baby, yeah! :)
  • The directions in the howto he mentions actually work pretty painlessly for OO/MySQL on windows. I've set that up & made use of it a few times and never had grief.

    But as he says, doing the same thing on redhat is, well, not so painless. I've had three or four tries without joy (but will be going back for #5 armed with this article and a bunch of the posts from this thread : )

    So where am I going with this.. Oh, yeah.. So if redhat is aiming for the dekstop/corporate market, it'd seem that it'd make sense for them to make their default install of MySQL also come with unixodbc (configured correctly) as part of the install. Even better would be the full MySQL / odbc / OO chain all installed properly & talking to each other. I mean, if you're gonna have a 'install everything' bloatware distro, may as well have it install something that's useful for non-geek corporate users.. Right?

  • Doesn't seem so hard. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bscanl ( 79871 )
    Summary of the moan:

    "I had to download source, and configure some software by hand. I then mucked about for a while and figured out how to get it working.

    I don't know what ./configure options are."

    I've solved harder porting problems in my time, though I'm probably one of those uber-dweebs he mentioned ;)

    The bit at the end where he blames MySQL AB for OpenOffice only being able to connect to MySQL using ODBC is a bit ridiculous. Can the journo
    in question distinguish between who makes the different products?

    Incidentally, are there better generic ways to connect to a database for applications like OpenOffice? ODBC just seems so... unclean. ;)

  • Rocket Science? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shadowpuppy ( 629329 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:13PM (#5271476)
    Took me only a few minutes. I cheated since unixODBC was already setup to talk to a database. Also I use Debian which probably doesn't hurt. But the OpenOffice end of the operation was dirt easy. I think the hardest part was finding the menu items.
  • The use of quotation marks in this story is hilariously inept.

  • Just Like Access? Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bellings ( 137948 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:21PM (#5271536)
    It's just like Access? So, it's a form builder and a report generator, with full support for embedding standard platform components, including and compliant script engines? Just like Access does?

    So, now I can script Open Office applications using Perl, Python, VBScript, JavaScript, and a slew of of less popular languages, just like Access? And I can bring in components built in any of the standard platform development environment, just like Access can use ActiveX controls?

    That's incredibly cool. I'm looking forward to trying that.

    Or, do you mean it's another crappy, half assed front end that looks superficially similar to Access to someone who's never bothered to use it?
    • All this sounds great, unless you noticed the author was trying to run this under Linux.

      Your "standard platform components" and "compliant script engines" only run under Windows?

      Sort of comparing apples to oranges, then.

      But I'll agree that it's not Access. At this point, it's more a data browser tool - it hasn't even got a good report generator.

      Even as that, it's missing the most important feature of any tool: being able to lock the users out of the application.

      Still, not being Access is probably a good thing, since the advice from all my advanced Access instructors has been "Code it in VB."

  • MySQL vs Access (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lspd ( 566786 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:23PM (#5271562) Journal
    This certainly isn't the first or last attempt to wrap a user friendly UI on top of MySQL, but I think attempts to push MySQL + a nice GUI as an Access killer are mistaken.

    My own experience with Access is fairly limited, but from what work I have done with Access, it seems that the biggest benefit is entirely ignored by this and other products like The Kompany's Data Architect. Access lets you take everything (data, reports, forms, queries, etc) and shove it all into a single portable file. Burning a copy to CD-R or Floppy is a snap, and it seems to be much easier for the clueless to wrap their heads around the idea of a database + reports + forms as a single file. I tried to sell a non-profit organization on the idea of MySQL + custom interfaces as a replacement to their quirky Access databases and they were completely unplussed by the idea.

    It seems like such a simple idea to combine perl or Python forms, HTML, XML or PDF reports, and Data into a single gzipped file (maybee even a file that runs on it's own without any third party software other than a perl or python interpriter.) I don't get why so much effort seems to be directed at making MySQL user friendly instead. MySQL seems like complete overkill as an Access replacement. GNutrition [sourceforge.net] is a good example of this problem.. Why in the world do you need a MySQL server for something so simple?
  • The link to the actual document is here [unixodbc.org], or you could just check Google [google.com].

    This document has been around forever; I could have sworn that I found it in the first place via Slashdot.

    I was looking at it a couple months ago to see if it would make a possible replacement for Access. It appeared that OpenOffice could give a nice frontend for simple forms, but not much beyond that. I didn't want to mess with ODBC, and wasn't about to install MySQL on my work machine.

    Access is great for single user desktop applications, but it doesn't really scale that well, even with SQL support.

    VB is normally the tool of choice, but I'm caught between the .EXE version becoming obsolete, and our organization not being ready to jump onto the .NET bandwagon.

    I'm looking forward to seeing what's new with it in the next OpenOffice release.

  • Hmmm, hidden database integration features that most users don't even know they have installed? Does this sound like a bad idea to anyone? It sounds like the helpful scripting/macro 'features' that cause so much trouble with MS Office. Could someone writes some kind of worm to exploit this? Maybe an OpenOffice document that wrecks your local database?

    I don't know anything about OpenOffice's security model, mind you, so I could be talking rubbish.

  • On Red Hat, with PostgreSQL... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Micah ( 278 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @01:36PM (#5271671) Homepage Journal
    connecting OOo with PG via unixODBC was very, very simple. Yes, it involved editing a couple files -- /etc/odbc.ini and odbcinst.ini, but you have templates and you just need to edit them. Of course, you don't even need to edit config files anymore -- use ODBCConfig. It's all there, assuming you do a full RH8 install.

    However, I wouldn't be so generous as to say OOo's database capabilities are as good as Access. You can merge print from your database -- that is quite easy. You can edit table structure and data -- OK, but I find phpPgAdmin works better for that. It even has form components and the ability to navigate a database with a form, but personally I haven't mastered this yet and feel it's a bit on the ugly side. Certainly there needs to be better documentation for forms and for the Basic code you may need to put in to automate forms. It also has a visual query designer -- OK.

    Overall, OOo's database tools will be useful for some people but it has a ways to go. For forms, I think GNU Enterprise [gnue.org] has quite a bit more potential.
  • I think the nice tihng about Access is that it lets you have SQLish access to a file.
    It is self contained, no server, just the application.

    There are many simple databases I would like to make, but having to play with some SQLd is annoying.
  • I'm not sure it's fair to query MySQL ABs role in this - did you try accessing Postgres, Interbase, SAPDB, Sybase, MSSQL, Oracle... through OO with unixODBC? Did they work?

    Whilst unixODBC sort of works, I've never had much confidence in it - strikes me as being very much the last resort when every other alternative has been tried. In your favour, the MySQL ODBC driver isn't particularly robust - seems to need a number of workarounds to get reliable access from Access (pardon the pun).

    I'd also query the quality and reliability of OOs external database support - I've consistently failed to get any database access via JDBC - works fine from my own Java code but never via OO. The documentation was also non-existent last time I looked.

    > that secret being the fact that hidden away inside,
    > completely unknown to most OpenOffice users, is a
    > user-friendly front end for databases

    User-friendly? McCreesh was definitely smoking something if he wrote that

  • Author is an idiot (Score:3, Informative)

    by sholden ( 12227 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @02:12PM (#5271983) Homepage
    Yes if you are going to compile stuff yourself you need to be prepared to make sure you actually configure things correctly. So that various software parts agree on where things are located.

    If you just want to use the damn software on the other hand you simply do:

    $ su root
    # apt-get install unixodbc libmyodbc openoffice.org unixodbc-bin
    # cp /usr/share/libmyodbc/odbcinst.ini /etc/.
    # exit
    $ ODBCConfig
    - use GUI to configure database info
    - note you could skip that 'cp' command and
    - config the whole thing here, but that seems
    - like extra effort to me when a perfectly good
    - MySQL config exists already :)
    $ oowriter
    - Tools->Data Sources
    - New Data Source
    - pick ODBC and the name you set up above
    - Do your database stuff...

    Not exactly rocket science.

    The article author is simply an idiot, who wants to make life difficult by compiling software himself without bothering to configure it properly.

  • You can use a JDBC driver to get at the data to. It's much easier to set up than ODBC.

    You can also export your data to CSV text, or use flat file databses such as xbase.

    In fact, I just finished making a java app that converts old foxpro data into CSV, then I merge the data into a form letter and can print labels from the data source.

    Everything is there, and easy to set up. The only thing missing is good documentation, IMHO.

Slashdot Top Deals

What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.

Close