Re: [cobalt-users] Wish List...

[Kris Dahl <krislists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> You don't have to be a SQL expert or master DBA to use MS Access
> or MS Works Database for example, in fact, if you are one of the
> above -- you're probably having convulsions from the mere mention
> of these products <grin>.  The Cobalt line is not marketed or
> inteneded for such power users though, it's meant for the average
> joe who wants to run a web site or several web sites quick and
> easily.

See that is kind of what I mean... You don't need to be an expert to use
Access or Works or whatever, and as soon as you become an expert you stop
using those apps.  Why is it that nobody uses Access for serious websites?
Because none of the experts think it is worth using.  When I run into a
problem that I haven't figured out a solution to, I always try to do a bit
of research to find out how the 'big' sites do it.  Usually I learn from it
and and usually extend the approach that they take.

But your right--the Cobalt line is marketed in a method that makes you think
that you don't have to be an experienced developer to build a web site, or
that you don't need an experienced systems engineer to run an ISP.  When
both assumptions are dead wrong.

Many people say that the Cobalt is for the average Joe who 'just' wants to
host a site or two.  And they're right!  I am of the opinion that a Cobalt
server with an inexperienced systems engineer/administrator and a
inexperienced developer is for *sub* average Joes.

>> With MyODBC you can use any ODBC compliant client to access MySQL at least.
>> PostgreSQL has similar capabilities, I believe.  So they can use Access or
>> whatever.  I have a unique experience in that I learned SQL command line
>> before I learned any other database.  I tried to use Access a couple months
>> back--that was a real bass ackwards application.  I utterly hated the GUI,
>> as it overcomplicated everything.  Anyway, my point is that sometimes it
>> important for the user to learn how to set something up on their own rather
>> than have a 'turn-key' solution.
> 
> I generally do not prefer a GUI with the exception of a few
> applications, generally word processors or something that will
> list a table of results -- reading a table in a scrollable grid
> is rather nice after all.

I use a combination of both, myself.  When I want to build some quick
queries or cut-and-paste my debug output from PHP I use 'mysql', the command
line client.

But when I am managing the tables, etc., I tend to use phpMyAdmin, mostly
because I can never remember the create, alter, etc. syntax.

The MySQL guys have a GUI client, btw, which is supposed to be getting
pretty good.  Apparently, from what I have been reading, its going to be a
pretty cool application.

> Although as for the comment of ODBC, you can use MyODBC or the
> PostgreSQL odbc drivers to access a particular database from a
> client -- but this assumes you understand how to create the
> database, the database user, and setup the access configurations
> for that database.  Since this requires enough intelligence to
> RTFM, you shouldn't expect it from a PHB<grin>.

heh.  I guess your right.  I always think of an SE or SA administering the
database, and then let the client access it.

> I have plenty of Access mdb files in use on various web
> sites (note, this was not my choice but either a 3rd party
> software app or the customer's choice and design).  There
> exist lots of people who feel comfortable putting together
> a simple database with MS Access and using FrontPage to
> build the simple SELECT queries that fuel their ASP.

Oh I pitty you.  That must suck quite a bit.
 
> I simply think that by integrating a good GUI for database
> design, that it may be easier to overcome the resistance
> some people have to switching from what they know about
> Access to a real RDBMs like PostgreSQL.  I know this is
> the biggest holdout for one customer who has a multitude
> of sites who while is not a technical genius, is intelligent
> enough to handle the RaQ's interface but losing the ability
> to work on local databases that can be administered EASILY
> through a GUI (easy for him anyway)...is the only remaining
> barrier and in this case, it's a comfort barrier.

Good point.  But I have another idea that worked for me.  I started out not
administering my own SQL server.  The ISP ran it, I was able to create
tables, etc.  I learned SQL and then was able to run it on my own, and the
rest is history.  It was like training wheels, I guess.  Administering your
own MySQL database can be very intimidating, I can attest to that.

phpMyAdmin I used *after* I learned the ropes on the command line and with
PHP.

>> Then someone buys it, trys it and comes on this list saying
>> its a POS because they can't figure out DNS.
> 
> I dunno, I'm kinda at that point where I chuckle and maybe pull
> out a RTFM...Seek the Grasshopper book reference.

I was thinking it might be cleaver to have a moderator for the list that
essentially has a point and click interface to email KB articles or the
archive to posters of stupid questions that have been answered more than
once, plus a BIG scolding.

Actually, having a filter that essentially types in the subject line of new
message into a search query and then returns to the poster.  If that didn't
answer the question, the post could reply to the answer and request that it
be posted to the list at large.

And this would be if you were a new to the list--there is a configuration
option in the mailman interface that would let us 'experts' disable it.  But
you have to have a password do do so.  Gaining such 'expert' or 'member'
status requires a subscription of 30 days plus at least 5 'intelligent'
posts.

I'm on to something!

-k