[SLUG] The Linux Uprising

[Jonathan Worthington]

Hi,

> Can you really compare Access with the likes of MySQL or Postgres?
No, but then I didn't try to... :-)

> After all MySql and Postgres are free, relational database servers,
> whereas Access costs money, is flat file and is not a server. Granted
> Access does have a nice front end, which reflects its intended usage -
> in an office, not an online environment where its complete inability to
> cope with concurrent users will kill it dead.
You're right.  Access does badly with concurrent users, though it is fairly
good at handling large numbers of records.  Being a single file also makes
it very easy to move data aroud.  It's engine, all the same, is quite
feeble compared to the MySQL, Postgres etc.  But remember - Access wins in
the office sector because it's front end is nice.  The two main reasons
that I guess anyone would use it in a web environment are:-
1) They already have an Access database they want to make a web interface
to.
2) They are on a windows server and don't wanna fork out for MS SQL...

> Sequel Server was
> Microsoft's answer to a database server, however in their native (and
> equally specced) environments it [Sequel] is beaten hands down by
> MySQL, Postgres and the mother (allegedly) of all databases, Oracle.
Be careful.  MySQL still misses certain things that MS SQL does have.  I am
pretty sure from the stats I've seen that MySQL probably performs better in
many things, and I believe Oracle obviously will.  Don't know enough on
Postgres to comment on its performance.  Of course, the cost of MS SQL is a
bit of a put-off!!!

> Whilst communicating with a database through a command line may seem
> un-civilised it does support the maxim: the easier the front end, the
> poorer the performance. If Microsoft made a race car it would be very
> luxurious and fully specced, but it would go like a three legged
> donkey. Unlike an open source database (and the likes of Oracle) who
> would produce a car which wouldn't even be painted (much like a
> Mercedes SL Silver Arrow, no paint, windows or anything else but it
> went like seven bells) but would go like a scolded cat.
The thing to realise about MySQL is that it enables itself to be
communicated with it in a wide range of ways.  So sure, the CLI is one way,
but it's open to web interfaces and GUI software interfaces.  So you can
keep the performance of it on the web when accessing it through scripts,
and without affecting that build a fancy front end to it.

> Given that SQL has a standard command set its just a case of usage and
> over time you'll be amazed at how efficient the command line is and how
> well your (open source) scripts run, or why not get a front end such as
> PHPMyAdmin and then you get the best of both worlds.
phpMyAdmin is awesome, but you can't compare it to Access.  Nor can you
expect office workers to learn SQL IMHO.  Businesses won't want to spend
money training people to do that.  If MySQL is to be brought to tbe
business productivity desktop we probably need a nice interface like Access
to "access" it through.

> As for exporting files, all database's can (to some degree or other)
> export CSV files and subsequently import CSV files. And there are
> scripts which cater for data migration, or maybe you fancy XML/RSS/RDF
> then you can really let rip with your data.
Yup, true.  :-)

> What do you think?
Good thoughts.  I think the key to this is seperating out the Access
database engine (which like the MySQL one probably just takes SQL queries)
and the Access GUI that talks to that engine.  If we could take the Access
front end GUI, fix it's quirks and "attach" it (but not exclusively!) to an
engine like MySQL then maybe we'd have the answer.  Or be closer... ;-)

So what do you think?  ;-)

Jonathan Worthington
Founder, PCO & Director
Executive President, WDD
JWCS.NET Limited

William Street Business Centre
Lower Clark Street
Scarborough
North Yorkshire
England
YO12 7PW
Company Number: 4332599

Phone Number: (0)7005 980 392
Fax Number: (0)7005 802 557