Filepro-list Digest, Vol 25, Issue 23

[Fairlight]

This public service announcement was brought to you by Tyler:
> We've already cleared up the difference between server and client, and that
> fP only offers client.  My objection is that ODBC isn't offered as a server
> protocol, and that most developers expect that from a database.  

I don't dispute that expectation in this day and age.

> When I think of filePro, I think of it as a db in the same category as
> MySQL or Oracle, not as a development tool for authoring clients to other
> dbs.  I doubt I'm alone in that.

You're not alone in that -mistake-, no.  And from '93-2003, maybe even
2004, I tried fighting inertia along the same lines.  I can tell you
firsthand that even if you educate yourself in the finer arts of filePro
and the community, you're still not going to catalyse much change.  I won't
say outright that it's stagnant, but it's as close as makes no difference
-especially to people on the outside who come from and mostly use other
products-.  Note the emphasis.  Although a few people on the list have
announced their intent to leave fP behind due to lack of features/progress
in the last few weeks, which may signal an upturn in action as opposed to
patient waiting.

> Why is it not rude for Laura to say "End of discussion. Consider yourself
> corrected." but not me?

Short answer?  Because she's technically right, and you're not.  She -has-
the high ground on this because she knows what she's talking about on
-both- sides of the picture.  She's technically versed in structured
languages--in fact, she at one point planned an fP-Struct that was to be a
sort of precompiler for filePro processing that would have given fP a
structured language front-end.  I think that project is on hold or was
dropped, but I've no doubt she has the ability.  She used to work for
fP-Tech (well, one or several forms of the company before fP-Tech at the
very least).  I believe she was responsible for a large majority of the
win16 port that they then dropped on the floor.  She's more than capable.

You're frankly coming at this, self-admittedly, as an outsider.  Been
there, done that.  The problems you're going to face if you persist in your
current methods of discourse are 1) a lack of results, as people that -can-
make a difference either ignore you or tell you to clear off--nevermind
that the product isn't that quickly evolving a creature to start, and 
2) making a host of enemies that you needn't have.  More on this in a bit.

> > 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.
>
> As I said:  1, I didn't know who he was, 2, I didn't know who SHE was,
> and 3, it wasn't a deliberate insult to anyone.  I stated how it looks
> from the outside, from the perspective of someone who hasn't been
> intimately connected with fP, fPTech and it's developers.
>
> > 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?
> > :)
>
> 1, I didn't know who he was, 2, I didn't know who SHE was, and 3, it
> wasn't a deliberate insult to anyone.  I stated how it looks from the
> outside, from the perspective of someone who hasn't been intimately
> connected with fP, fPTech and it's developers.

Repeated twice, -almost- word for word excepting that copy&paste incident
at the start.  

Axiom:  Ignorance is no excuse.

I can respect your PoV as an outsider.  I come from that direction myself,
and I still have issues with fP-Tech.  They're now, having spend 13 years
in this community, less "outsiderish" issues than when I first walked into
the scene.  I mean, I honestly don't recall seeing anything on the list
from you before yesterday or so.  Strikes me as having issues with it,
finding a resource, coming in guns blazing...and finding everyone else
armed with P-90's just a few milliseconds too late.  Been there, done
THAT.  I'm no stranger to your position, nor to -some- of your viewpoings
(ie., fP -should- support modern technologies that are expected and
practically required these days).  Unfortunately, I'm also no stranger to
your methodology, or to your lack of intimate knowledge of the product, its
history, etc.  It's a bigger backdrop than you apparently know--or than I
knew at the time.  There's a lot of history here.  When you walk in and
dump on everyone from a state of at least partial ignorance, they'll shut
you down quite quickly and effectively.  And rightly so.  Been there, done
that as well.

You catching a theme here?  I can -relate-, okay?  But I also have 13 years
of figuring it out that says, "Dude, you're going about this -so-
incorrectly--and from a weak position, at that."

> > 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.
>
> Again, why was it not rude for her to say it, but it was for me?  If it
> was rude, I was justified in being rude back.  If it wasn't rude, then
> neither was I.

It wasn't rude for her because she had the righteousness of full knowledge
of the entire scope of things (both technical and business-related) on her
side.  She corrected your facts more than anything else.  Your facts, as
originally mis-presented (I think it's safe to say everyone here that's
even been following this takes issue with your 'factual' statements about
read/write access in fPODBC and your lack of initial clarity with regards
to client/server sides, including me), were not spot-on.  We read what you
said, not what you meant.  We're not psychic.  Elucidate clearly, and you
won't have as many problems.  But she corrected what you said, and closed
the case on it, probably because you didn't come off as knowing thing one
about software architecture with your mistaken and misplaced use of
terminology at the start, and your lack of clarity that helped bolster it.
In addition, her initial one was not rude because (I think) she was simply
stating facts and saying, "Okay, now you know."

It -was- rude from you, because it was an uncalled-for shot back at her
(from lower moral ground, I might add) in a tone that basically said to
-me- when I read it, "No, b*tch, consider YOURself corrected."  Those
weren't your words, but that's the tone -I- picked up on, whether that's
how you meant it or not.  Especially when you went on to just restate
something incorrectly, blithely ignoring her offered knowledge.  I guess
it's part of that not being a people person thing, but you probably want to
work on that.  Might take a while--been over 15 years professionally for me
and I'm -still- working on it, myself.

> I use it every day, obviously, or would I bother posting?  And nope,

Oh, people have had their pet little reasons.

> I seldom look at how it's run.  I'm using the platform to develop and
> maintain code, not to develop and maintain filePro itself.  So I haven't
> a clue it there's a persistent process running somewhere, to be honest -
> there may very well be, somewhere.  Maintaining the server environment is
> not part of my duties.

Okay, another helpful hint:  When asking for features, consider what's
involved.  No, you're not responsible for maintaining their product.
However, if you ask for a wing for your car, it would behoove you to first
ask yourself, "Gee, is this thing even close to aerodynamic enough to fly?"

HOW can you use the product every day and not know how it's run?  I'd love
to know the answer to that one.  How can you -help- but know?  You have to
program menus, so you know the programs involved.  If you don't know 'ls'
or 'ps', you probably shouldn't be on *nix.  [You mentioned shell
scripting, so I'm assuming you're on *nix of some flavour.]  It's called
-LOOKING-.

> > 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.
>
> <shrug> You seem to be really stuck on that.  Again, why can she say
> it and not I?  If she doesn't want to talk about it further, there's

I already explained that.  She was technically precise.  You were not.
That already grants a certain amount of leeway.  In addition, having read
both, and forgetting I even know Laura a little, just reading both messages
cold with no prior knowledge, you pulled attitude where she didn't.  And
the perceived attitude was not something she deserved.

> better ways.  Why not just ignore that part of the message as not worth
> pursuing, or just state that "that is my final position on the topic.",
> rather than 'feeding a troll'?  Saying that I'm wrong and then forbidding
> any further discourse on the topic is polite?

When the other person starts appearing so clueless as to have a cranial
casing with the molecular density of lead?  Yes.  That's about as polite as
it gets with -me-, anyway.  You Just Weren't Getting It.  I'd have ripped
your head off quite a bit more, personally.  But that's -my- "not a people
person" problem.

And since you're so big on ignoring the parts you don't like, why did you
toss it back at her in the fashion you did?  You can bring up form all you
like -now-, but your former actions bely your current attitude.  YOU did
not drop it, nor did you take any other part of your proposed strategy and
adopt it.  Practise what you preach.

> Not that Laura needs anyone to defend her.  She's -more- than capable. :)
>
> Er....then why have you done it three times in the last few paragraphs?

Because she's in the right.  I happen to have a strong personal attachment
to matters of principle, whereby I'll back something to the hilt unless it
can be proven wrong.  She didh't deserve what you flung at her, at least as
it appeared from a cold reading.  If I got to know you more, I might know
you didn't mean it that way, if you didn't.

> Just as an aside, I also keep pointing out that my viewpoint is that of
> an outside developer who doesn't really know that much about the inner
> working of fp or fpTech.  Which may not be most fP developers these days

Yeah, been there, done that.  I did it in -two- communities, actually...SCO
UNIX -and- filePro.  Which is how I know you're headed for a collision with
a few major players' /dev/null at some point Real Soon Now[tm] unless you
chill out and write more reasoned posts.

> but is certainly most people in general.  I'd also like to point out
> that almost everyone considers a db backend to be a db server.  It's

NOW, yes.  Before '90?  Not so much.  And they have 12 years of active
service of the product without that expectation.

> like saying a car should run on gasoline.  Sure, you can get a hydrogen
> vehicle or an electric, but it's pretty rare; when I see the word 'car'
> I expect to put gas in it.  One expects a database backend to act as a
> server and offer ODBC connections.  Yup, fP does say that their ODBC

Again, NOW you'd expect that.  I don't dispute that, and in fact I agree
with you.  But I've also come to respect the history surrounding the
product.  If you take the time to -get to know- the community and the
product's history, you'll see a lot of reasons why server-side never
happened and very well may never happen.

> I'm concerned.  It's whether or not it shoud offer it as a server, and
> what developers expect from a db backend in the year 2006.  It doesn't
> *matter* what fP was originally designed to do or how well it does it,
> or what it currently offers, really.  What matters is what people want
> from it, and what it needs in order to function well in a modern IT
> environment.  Can I fuel my car at any gas station, or do I have to go to

Okay, then at that point, if it cannot deliver what you expect from it, or
more--what you NEED from it, then it's time to pick up your code, grab a
new engine, and start porting.  Just walk away.  Because it's not a
situation that's likely to change.

> own station everywhere I want one?  For me, ODBC is a biggie because if I
> had it, a lot of other objections to fP wouldn't matter (not just mine).
> Alot of those objections seem to revolve around the interface. With ODBC,
> I could use whatever interface development kit I liked, plus I could
> integrate with other applications far more easily.

If you don't like the interface, why the hell are you using the product?
Okay, a screen limitation argument I fully support--one wants more real
estate, that's legitimate.  It -extends- the interface.  But if you don't
like the interface, what's keeping you tied to fP?  There are better
storage engines, certainly--not a big fan of fixed-length anything, myself.
Most of fP's strength comes from three things:

1) A language that's easy for even the clueless to pick up and use to one
degree or another, and Get Stuff Done.

2) Rapid UI development.

3) Rapid report development.

Forget about ODBC a sec.  You've already slammed the language's
shortcomings, so #1 is dead for you.  You just slammed the UI, so #2 is
dead for you.  And if you just need reports, fine...go get some SQL engine
and plop Crystal Reports or similar on the front.  Use whatever you like as
a front-end.  Problem solved.

Sounds like nothing in particular is keeping you bound to fP.  At least
nothing you've -stated-.

> I think the topic's mostly been beaten to death now, anyway, especially
> since I spent most of this email having to discuss interpersonal
> dynamics.  I gave my opinion as an outsider, Ken and Laura took issue
> with both the opinion and how I expressed it.  My reasoning on why ODBC

They weren't alone, and I'd probably be one of the two people most likely
to take your side on certain issues--and probably the one person most
likely to undertand your presentation (ie., attitude) and possibly let it
slide.  I didn't.  And can't.  Like I said, either I suddenly got old and
the intolerance gene just activated, or you're pretty much off the beaten
track in some regards here.  Considering I don't hit 35 for another month
or so, I figured I had at least 15 years left on the getting old thing.

If you want to survive in -any- community, you need to learn its dynamic.
You say this like it's a shock that it even came up.  I guarantee you that
this community differs from the MySQL community, differs from Linux,
differs from FreeBSD, ad infinity.  Every community has its own dynamic,
and you came in with one that I could see taking just fine in other venues,
but which I know from personal experience -won't- fly here.

> opinion remains that it's a must have and that most developers expect it
> from a database product and would think of fP in that way rather than as
> a development platform with client-only ODBC

Which is why, IMHO, the opening paragraph to the main www.fptech.com
homepage should have its language inverted to read:

"A rapid application development toolkit featuring a relational database
engine, lightning fast indexing and search [...]"

Putting the database aspect first isn't technically incorrect.  However,
the expectations that it raises are problematic from a marketing
standpoint, I'd agree.

> , and my impression is that fPTech doesn't see it as a cost-effective
> project and so it's unlikely to ever be implemented.  Fair summing up,
> personal issues aside?

This last bit?  Yes, I'd say that's a fair summing up.  Actually, looking
at what's involved and knowing more about ODBC internals than I want to
(which isn't a lot), I'd say it flat-out -isn't- a cost-effective project.

And ODBC is supposedly passe now.  I can't say that with absolute
authority, but I got a little education from someone I very much respect
regarding OLEDB and ODBC.  Apparently ODBC is so bloody slow because
it's two layers (or was it three?) removed from the actual layer you
need to talk to.  It's outdated, outmoded, and doesn't perform as well.
Technically, if someone was going to do server-side, it should be the
latest standard that's adopted and is a better performer, not one that's
slowly being depricated.

mark->