2009 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice AwardsThis forum is for the 2009 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite products of 2009. This is your chance to be heard! Voting ends on February 9th.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Distribution: Fedora (workstations), CentOS (servers), Arch, Mint, Ubuntu, and a few more.
Originally Posted by MBybee
I think you have that backwards - RDBMS came most recently. I honestly don't think that the transition to RDBMS makes any sense in a large scale setting, but then again I was one of the big fans of the technology when it started really gaining ground.
SQL took a world full of custom, non-portable query languages and methods (InnoDB, DBase, IMS, ISAM/VSAM, BerkelyDB, Info) and standardized on a single simple API.
That being said, RDBMS is also not a one size fits all, especially if all you're doing is reading data that's not truly relational or gains no benefits from normalization or de-normalization.
Probably a discussion for a different thread... but please bear in mind that this is not a new idea. This is an ancient idea that was retired for a reason, just like virtualization and clustering. There are places and times for every approach - and trotting out 40 year old techniques with a nifty new name does not invalidate the 40 years since they were considered cutting edge nor the reasons why they fell from popularity
No, I meant what I said.
I know non-relational DBMSs are not new. How, old? I don't know. What I meant was that after a long period of domination by relarional/SQL based DBMSs the world is ready to give the alternative philosophies another try.
I'm not saying we should avoid relational DBMSs like a plague. They have proven their value. But approaches like document-oriented, key-value store, etc. NoSQL (so to speak) has gain a significant momentum to demand fair trial.
That's how technology works (and IMHO, how it should). Dominant/popular concepts get challenged by alternatives. Maybe a little at the beginning, but yet significant enough. Unix was (and still is) old. There was Windows, NetWare, etc. Then here we are with Linux and BSDs.
Evolving technologies are something that cannot be retired just like that. Because they won't stay in the same state where the rationale for their retirement holds true forever. And also things change sometimes creating enough leverage which weren't available back then. So virtualization, cloud computing, REST, Dynamic languages, etc. are not new topics. I'm not saying all these are oh-so-great either. However there is no denying that the industry is using virtualization, cloud concept, dynamix languages, REST, Linux, etc. If you and me didn't try FOSS OSs like Linux and BSDs we wouldn't be having this conversation either. But the point is "we did", and so did a lot of others. Isn't that just beautiful.
PS: I agree. Let's keep this thread flow on it's course. We were more or less off-topic. But enjoyed hearing from you.