<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More on Solid and MySQL?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dbms2.com/2006/04/22/more-on-solid-and-mysql/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2006/04/22/more-on-solid-and-mysql/</link>
	<description>Choices in data management and analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:51:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: DBMS2 &#8212; DataBase Management System Services&#187;Blog Archive &#187; Solid/MySQL fit</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2006/04/22/more-on-solid-and-mysql/#comment-935</link>
		<dc:creator>DBMS2 &#8212; DataBase Management System Services&#187;Blog Archive &#187; Solid/MySQL fit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:26:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/?p=68#comment-935</guid>
		<description>[...] I felt like writing a lot about the great potential fit between MySQL and Solid over the weekend, but Solid didn&#8217;t want me to do so. Now, however, I&#8217;m not in the mood, so I&#8217;ll just say that in OLTP, Solid&#8217;s technology is strong where MySQL&#8217;s is weak, and vice-versa. E.g., Solid is so proud of its zero-administration capabilities that, without MySQL, it doesn&#8217;t have much in the way of admin tools at all. Conversely, I think that many of those websites that crash all the time with MySQL errors would crash less with the Solid engine underneath. (Solid happens to be proud of its BLOB-handling capability, efficiency-wise.) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I felt like writing a lot about the great potential fit between MySQL and Solid over the weekend, but Solid didn&#8217;t want me to do so. Now, however, I&#8217;m not in the mood, so I&#8217;ll just say that in OLTP, Solid&#8217;s technology is strong where MySQL&#8217;s is weak, and vice-versa. E.g., Solid is so proud of its zero-administration capabilities that, without MySQL, it doesn&#8217;t have much in the way of admin tools at all. Conversely, I think that many of those websites that crash all the time with MySQL errors would crash less with the Solid engine underneath. (Solid happens to be proud of its BLOB-handling capability, efficiency-wise.) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Curt Monash</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2006/04/22/more-on-solid-and-mysql/#comment-891</link>
		<dc:creator>Curt Monash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2006 02:49:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/?p=68#comment-891</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been an analyst for over 25 years, and I&#039;ve NEVER had an embargo so repeatedly emphasized to me.   And no effort was made to separate out what is and isn&#039;t embargoed.

It&#039;s a crying shame, since I suspect I&#039;m literally the only analyst who understands the Solid product line or its potential in open source as well as I do.  (Because of the research I&#039;ve done for the forthcoming white paper, in no small part.)   And there&#039;s a real case to be made that Solid&#039;s technology is lighter-weight than Ingres or PostgreSQL, and more industrial-strength than any other alternative.  

But at this point I don&#039;t expect that line of reasoning to get any significant attention or buzz.

What really burns me up is that I think Solid&#039;s marketers are smart people, who know their craft.  But nobody bats 1.000, and they blew this one, badly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been an analyst for over 25 years, and I&#8217;ve NEVER had an embargo so repeatedly emphasized to me.   And no effort was made to separate out what is and isn&#8217;t embargoed.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a crying shame, since I suspect I&#8217;m literally the only analyst who understands the Solid product line or its potential in open source as well as I do.  (Because of the research I&#8217;ve done for the forthcoming white paper, in no small part.)   And there&#8217;s a real case to be made that Solid&#8217;s technology is lighter-weight than Ingres or PostgreSQL, and more industrial-strength than any other alternative.  </p>
<p>But at this point I don&#8217;t expect that line of reasoning to get any significant attention or buzz.</p>
<p>What really burns me up is that I think Solid&#8217;s marketers are smart people, who know their craft.  But nobody bats 1.000, and they blew this one, badly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Kruckenberg</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2006/04/22/more-on-solid-and-mysql/#comment-877</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Kruckenberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:08:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/?p=68#comment-877</guid>
		<description>Yikes. I wondered about that when writing about it, but I figured that if there&#039;s a press release, and ZDNet picked it up, that it was meant to be out there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yikes. I wondered about that when writing about it, but I figured that if there&#8217;s a press release, and ZDNet picked it up, that it was meant to be out there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

