On 19/10/14 00:14, Steve Litt wrote: > On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:06:17 +0400 > Reco <recovery...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:24:16 -0400 >> Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 03:00:26 +0200 >>> lee <l...@yagibdah.de> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> But when it eats files and is 10 years behind, why are people >>>> buying it?
Thought the context has been removed from the quote... Reasons I've been given (roughly in order of occurrence):- because it cost a lot of money (for some value is relative to cost), because their apps/developers demand it, because that's what the cheque signers recognise, because it works for them, because they feel comfortable doing what the Jones are doing. If it did eat files for those that pay the big money - they wouldn't continue using it, though they might sack the administrators. The reasons given may not be the real reasons - my "impression" is that having made the choice (as the result of a deep emotional investment) they're unwilling to reassess their original opinion (which would challenge the reliability of their "gut" instinct". Alternatively, why buy a Rolls Royce? >>>> >>>> So how can we safely store large amounts of data? >>> >>> I thought Postgres was supposed to be powerful, stable, reliable, >>> and great for lots of data. >> >> Storing all your data in Postgres is surely possible, but what about >> convenience of doing so? >> I mean, how easily the data (say, home videos or photo collection) can >> be put in and retreived. To be fair, implementation and the management system are major factors in determining "it's" usability. >> >> Reco > > I think comm got crossed. Somebody had asked why we use Oracle, someone > else said that was a safe DBMS, and I said "what about Postgres. I > would never, never, NEVER store file data like home video or photos in > a DBMS. That's a perfectly valid personal choice, others (e.g. professional photographers and web developers) find image databases *indispensable* - especially when working with large (and very large) numbers of images. FOSS candidates include personal/professional image database-based programs like DigiKam, server apps like MediaGoblin, OpenDAM, and many others. As to choice of db - that's another personal choice, for every variation there's someone who'll point out the failing, in their 'experience' (mysql, postgres, nosql, etc, etc) there's a large and reputable company/site/institution that swears by it. And it that choice fails (eats files) there's usually an integrity checking and backup solution that someone says will fix it (if only the complainant had implement them). Flickr, Imgur, Youtube, Deviantart, and huge number of related sites seem to do OK... (and I'm specifically limiting my comments to Open Source - Adobe is another kettle of fish). I've had problems with half a dozen types of databases, and trouble free experiences with the same ones using different applications. I'd also note that others have had different experiences with the same applications. Implementation and use are major factors. -------------8<------------------------------>8------------------------ Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5442637a.6030...@gmail.com
