there's an idea (i don't want to say generally held but it sometimes seems
so) among folks "serious" about their databases that mysql isn't quite
right-in-the-head. a few years ago the developers of mysql had this "funny"
publicly stated attitude about transactions as being a fancy, unnecessary
function. they used to brag about it. i've always been suspicious of it
since then--maybe a reformed harlot is more zealous but i can't help
thinking deep down there's something still loose & zany lurking.
and of course it currently doesn't do unicode which makes it kind of useless
to me even for the most trivial applications.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
- RE: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out there?) Micha Schopman
- Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out th... Andrew Dixon
- Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out th... Scott Stroz
- Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus ou... Andy Allan
- Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security guru... Jochem van Dieten
- Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security ... Andy Allan
- Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out th... Cutter
- RE: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus ou... Paul Hastings
- RE: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out th... Dave Watts
- RE: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out th... Dave Watts
- RE: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus out th... Micha Schopman
- Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus ou... Andrew Dixon
- Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security guru... Jochem van Dieten
- Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security ... Damien McKenna
- RE: Access alternatives (WAS: Security gurus ou... Mark A Kruger
- Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security guru... Scott Stroz
- Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Security ... Andrew Dixon
- Re: Access alternatives (WAS: Secu... Jochem van Dieten