Trail of Tears: MySQL, ODBC, & OpenOffice 1.0 352
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."
Something open source? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Something open source? (Score:2, Redundant)
TheJesusCandle steals someone's comment. Again. (Score:5, Interesting)
Good idea, though. This being Slashdot, nobody checks for dupes
Hmm, looks like this is a habit of yours [slashdot.org]. I'm continually amazed that people consider
Re:TheJesusCandle steals someone's comment. Again. (Score:3, Interesting)
-hero.
Re:Something open source? (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't clear from the article where he got the RPMs from. If they were from a mixture of different places, it's not that surprising that there were difficulties. Maybe the answer is for the package builders to talk to each other a bit more.
Re:Something open source? (Score:3, Insightful)
*SNIP*
It isn't clear from the article where he got the RPMs from. If they were from a mixture of different places, it's not that surprising that there were difficulties. Maybe the answer is for the package builders to talk to each other a bit more.
This is why Microsoft implimented a registry. Now the registry is badly implimented and has some bad drawbacks (like the fact that it is used for EVERYTHING and thus WAY OVERBLOATED) but a unified configuration database (that just said where a package is located and where its "main" configuration file/s were located) would solve these problems and the RPM packagers would not have to care about that kind of stuff.
Not a 'secret' (Score:2, Informative)
I think they are waiting until reporting is done to truely 'support' it..
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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:
-- Yoz
Re:Uh, he's a Linuxworld columnist? (Score:5, Funny)
4 pages max. Unless it was an essay.
Re:Uh, he's a Linuxworld columnist? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh, he's a Linuxworld columnist? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Uh, he's a Linuxworld columnist? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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".
Re:Uh, he's a Linuxworld columnist? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, poor security design generally leaves security holes wide enough to drive a bus through. Fast, easy installers with secure defaults generally leave happy users with less hair torn out and less anger at ivory-tower developers who think you should already know a piece of software inside and out before being allowed to install it.
Since when did usability design equate to wide-open holes, apart from in the minds of those who think spending two hours hand-editing a makefile is a vital entry requirement for those who want to use basic office software?
-- Yoz
Read the article, your two points are missing big (Score:3, Informative)
The columnist is a linux user and as such figured out the problem and posted the solution. Now how much of a user he is can be debated.
You dont have to be "leet" as you put it to install the equivilent in Linux but it helps to have actually been a user of linux beyond "I installed Suse today".
So if the writer and Milt are the same person I guess you're right. Otherwise reread the article, again.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
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)
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)
>
> 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...
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)
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...
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Secret? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:Secret? ( Adabas ) (Score:4, Informative)
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
Re:Secret? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, yes. I managed to talk ODBC from a PHP script running under Apache to a PostgreSQL backend. This was under Redhat 7.3, just using the provided RPMs. Look into the unixODBC and postgresql-odbc packages. Getting the config files set up properly was the biggest thing, but after that it was a piece of cake.
MySQL, ODBC, OpenOffice haikus (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:MySQL haiku: get it right (Score:5, Funny)
You spoiled the joke entirely
I thought it was good.
Re:MySQL haiku: get it right (Score:2)
Re:MySQL haiku: get it right (Score:2, Funny)
Pedants' corner (Score:3, Informative)
However the IBM TLA police were called in (they turned a number of products into TLAs for some reason) and officially renamed it S.Q.L., so it's an SQL database these days.
Re:MySQL haiku: get it right (Score:2)
That the fine MySQL people have chosen to pronounce it wrong is their own choice. Heck, some people can't even decide if the 'S' stands for Structured or Standard.
As for me an my house, we choose sequel, since it has nice hacker resonance.
Re:MySQL, ODBC, OpenOffice haikus (Score:5, Funny)
A shameless waste of bandwidth
Keep up the good work
Re:MySQL, ODBC, OpenOffice haikus (Score:2)
Am I missing something here?
Re:MySQL, ODBC, OpenOffice haikus (Score:5, Funny)
Moderators do your worst
Flame my sorry ass
Re:MySQL, ODBC, OpenOffice haikus (Score:2)
Trail of Tears? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:2, Redundant)
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)
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.
Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)?
Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
This isn't about being PC . . . (Score:2)
Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:4, Insightful)
Powerful words should be used carefully, otherwise their glib use leaves our language impoverished and trivialized.
Whoa, did anyone else do a Linux doubletake? (Score:3)
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.
Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:2)
Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Trail of Tears? (Score:2)
Dr Fish
Re:So the space shuttle colombia walks into a bar. (Score:2, Troll)
Trail of Tears: Reading this stupid thread.
Not released... because not ready ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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"
Re:Not released... because not ready ? (Score:2)
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...
Re:Not released... because not ready ? (Score:2)
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)
Long live redhat quality assurance as usual (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Long live redhat quality assurance as usual (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Long live redhat quality assurance as usual (Score:2)
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)
Brian.
The short-short version (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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_deve
I've had enough of this guy, I'm getting off this topic...
MySQL is not a database (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re:MySQL is not a database (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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).
If it looks like a duck and smells like a duck... (Score:3, Informative)
- 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.
Re:MySQL is not a database (Score:2, Informative)
Re:MySQL is not a database (Score:2)
MySQL works, sometimes.
Re:MySQL is not a database (Score:2)
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.
Re:MySQL is not a database (Score:3)
Re:MySQL is not a database (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
Ug, what a bad solution. Nice attempt.
1. It doesn't explain why
2. You made a copy of a lib. If someday,
It woul dhave been better to adjust your lib path.
From the same author who inspired... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
"user-friendly front-end for databases"? (Score:2)
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)
Re:1.0? Please, that's so 6 months ago. (Score:2)
OO / MySQL on windows vs redhat (Score:2)
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)
"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
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)
Quotes (Score:2)
Just Like Access? Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Just Like Access? Cool! (Score:2)
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)
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?
Access alternative? (Score:2)
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.
Hidden database features? (Score:2)
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)
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.
SQL database without the server (Score:2)
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.
Conflict of interest for MySQL? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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
# 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.
There's more than just ODBC out there (Score:2)
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.
Re:Best kept secret? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:OLE DB?? (Score:4, Informative)
Admittely ODBC is/was gennerally improved AFAICT by microsoft, it is essentially still an X/Open standard.
It is availble on many platforms, Mac/VMS/Unix/Windows and probably others too. It is a relative striaghtforward C API for database access. Ok, native access could be quicker but I think you'd find difficulty building a thinner layer for all databse engines.
Lets be honest about this two in many cases I reckon you will find OLE DB implement on top of the ODBC drivers . Not that I've ever used OLE DB being a crossplatform developer.
Re:Relevance to users (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
>MS Office?
There are projects for which the price of MS Windows and MS Office will preclude the project being done. Such things may not matter to you, since you obviously either have working capital or are willing to compromise your ethics. What if your entire expected revenue was less than the price of that software, but the system you want to develop has value other than cash value? Because of the price of Office, you're suggesting that such a project should not even be done.
That's not your call. It's okay that there are alternatives, and that people choose to use them!