OT: Filemaker 8

[Fairlight]

With neither thought nor caution, Tyler Style blurted:
> Laura Brody wrote:
> >> I can't really say what the project scope would be like, I must admit.
> >> However, write access is already there in fpCGI, which makes me wonder 
> >> about why it isn't in fpODBC.
> > 
> >     It is in there. End of discussion. Consider yourself corrected.
> 
> Nope.  It's not.  I can't connect to a filePro datastore using a third 
> party app via ODBC.  End of discussion.  Consider yourself corrected.

Okay, chill.  I mean, seriously...not only are you apparently confused on
some key terminology and apparently unable to listen to a direct answer
-and- read the introductory paragraph of the filePro ODBC product page on
their web site (http://www.fptech.com/Products/fpodbc.shtml), but you're
now just plain being an ass.  I'm sorry, but you're really pushing it.
They've been polite to you through now.  After that shot, I wouldn't be
surprised if you were sent straight to /dev/null.  

I have -large- amounts of experience in being an ass in public forums.  Ask
anyone here.  Believe me when I say you're pushing the boundaries of what's
expected or tolerated even from the jerks.  You're bordering on trolling.

> I can certainly believe that.  fP has many nonstandard useages, 
> certainly linked to it's age.  I'm constantly agog at the fact that I 
> can't have recursive functions due to the gosub call limit.  But ODBC 
> has been around a long time now too: "Microsoft created ODBC by adapting 
> the SQL Access Group CLI. It released ODBC 1.0 in September, 1992"  So, 
> almost fourteen years.  Not exactly a new technology, either.  Oracle 
> was founded in 1979, and it has managed to tack on ODBC.  PostGres was 
> at demo stage in 1986, and they have ODBC too - and it's not even a 
> commercial product.  So I don't think it's rather too much to ask, given 
> that it's an IT industry standard as well (not just 'expected to have').

Those engines are designed to quite a different paradigm than fP is.  The
structure is far more conduscive to back-porting.  The original design
specs are probably closer in line to the requirements as well (unique keys,
etc.).

> Until today, I wasn't even aware that Ken was responsible for filePro 
> development.  I made a comment based on what I knew, which obviously 
> wasn't much, and I said so at the time.  You took it is some kind of 
> personal attack.  Which it obviously wasn't, as I couldn't even name a 

Gee, MIGHT it be because she's his WIFE?  Ya know, if someone insulted my
spouse, I'd rain seven kinds of hell down upon them, have no doubt.

> core app developer.  All I did was voice my opinion that it was either 
> lazy programmers or bad marketing strategy that was behind the lack of 

Yeah, I think it's the "lazy" part she had a problem with, man.  They're
married, Ken's development lead.  *thwack!*  What did you THINK was going
to come of a comment like that--chocolate and roses by FedEx?  :)

> ODBC server functionality, given that filePro has had plenty of time to 
> develop it and that it's a widespread standard used to communicate with 
> DB servers (which is hardly an opinion without basis, just a poorly 
> informed basis).  You countered that it was more of a problem to do with 
> inherent programming issues to the core applications, and I agreed that 
> you probably would know better than I would as fP source code and APIs 
> are closed source and I've never had any access to fpTech.  Negative is 
> not the same as nasty.  Nasty implies that I had malicious intent behind 
> my comments.  I don't.  Why would I?

You sure the hell sound it.  "Consider -yourself- corrected," fired back at
her?  Dude, I don't know laura -that- well, and I don't know you at all,
but you sound like you need a life preserver real quick--'cos that ice
you're skating on...it's getting REAL thin, REAL fast.

And who needs knowledge of the source code to see how it doesn't fit the
paradigm.  "IS THERE A PERSISTANT PROCESS RUNNING?"  No.  NOT A SERVER.
"IS THE APPLICATION TIGHTLY BOUND TO THE OS?"  No.  NOT AN INTEGRATED
SERVER.  See how easy that is?  I don't need a line of source code.  I just
need to look at -how- it's run.

I'm starting to wonder if you've even -used- the product, at this point.
If you have, you obviously haven't thought much about the topic other than
to winge at them.

> I'll try.  I admit I'm not particularly a people person.  But I don't 

Ya -THINK-?

> consider what I said either slander or flame-bait, just negative.  And 
> what crosses the line is in the eye of the beholder, no?  Can be a 
> problem, especially if one has a high sensitivity to talking about some 
> of the lacks of filePro.  :)

What crosses the line is something I would consider in the eye of the
beholder in many cases.  You've crossed (or damned near crossed) it
already, specifically with your shot above at "correcting" Laura.  Now,
as I said, I have a -lot- of experience being a prick in public forums,
almost always unintentionally.  I can be a pretty big PITA, and I know
it.  But either I'm getting -really- old, really fast and my intolerance
for juvenile crap is actually kicking in at last...or you're actually out
of line.  Because even I can't sit by and watch that one slide by without
comment, and I wasn't even the one it was aimed at.

Not that Laura needs anyone to defend her.  She's -more- than capable.  :)

mark->
-- 
There is no "I" in TEAM.
This would be the primary reason I've chosen not to join one.