Some people are over-invested in old technology

BTW, I recommend "One Side

BTW, I recommend "One Side Can Be Wrong" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html).

It would not be wrong to say that DBMS2 and other such "alternatives" are to the relational model what intelligent design is to evolution theory.

Good ones, Alf.  I'd say

Good ones, Alf.  I'd say that the last of the three choices applies to you and Fabian.  However, the false intimacy of the internet makes it hard for me to avoid you as thoroughly as I would like to.

As for me -- I've made a lot of mistakes in my career, some along the lines of being "right but early", and some being just utterly wrong.  And sometimes one leads to the other -- being "right but early" on object-oriented programming made me fail to realize that Visual Basic would blow a whole range of better and more expensive tools out of the market.

In the DBMS area, my last really big stinker was not appreciating how rapidly DB2 would destroy the independent  mainframe DBMS.  Sure, this could be my first horrible mistake in the DBMS area in 20 years; one might even say I'm due.  But betting against me has not been a fruitful strategy, overall, in the past, and I don't think it's a wise one for the future.

Look.  I understand what Fabian is trying to do.  He likes to pick public fights with people who

A.  Are relatively visible but
B.  Are not in a position to give or withhold business in the future

Looks like the split worked.

Looks like the split worked. The 2nd part still didn't though. Weird. Sure looks like the behavior under DBMS2. I give up.

Let's just suspend this

Let's just suspend this nonsense for the weekend.   I'll have new stuff for you clowns to get all upset about published by Monday.

Yes Curt, and how many

Yes Curt, and how many dimensions are there in a relaton?

For basic education, Curt, read carefully...

do we take it that DBMS2

do we take it that DBMS2 applies only to data warehouses?

do you understand the distinction between application and database functions? this is a rhetorical question.

and you have the nerve to mention "scientology"?

Have you heard of "data

Have you heard of "data warehouses", Alf?  Of course you have.  So I'll assume you were in a hurry and didn't exactly mean the stupidity you typed.  (That kind of thing happens to everybody.)

And Fabian -- I don't know what in the world you're nattering about this time.  (But I'll assume that you know proper grammar, and were typing in a hurry too.)

I already replied to the

I already replied to the "scientology" nonsense, but there are again posting problems. I will wait a bit more before reposting, just in case the previous post pops up.

But note how Monash's wrong use of terminology to impress the uneducated.

He dumps in "empirical practice" to create an association with "empirical theory", and thus benefit from the latter's reputation, which is completely irrelevant to what he claims.

Curt, down to

Curt, down to basics:

Actually, I was planning to write a long post, but I rest my case: It is not worth it.

FYI, I'll let my first argument stay:

Do you believe in the notion of the same information spread in different locations?
If so, how do you update it? When, consisent and how often?

Scientology my .ss : what a load of nonsense. Sorry but you set the standard here.

I do not need to say more.

"True Relational" is a lot

"True Relational" is a lot like Scientology -- latter day revelation; you have to pay to have truth revealed to you; those who dispute it are shrilly attacked by faithful believers; the true believers proactively attack empirical practice that works; the "truth" is claimed to be highly rooted in science.