"J. Roeleveld" <jo...@antarean.org> writes: > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 09:32:55 PM lee wrote: >> "J. Roeleveld" <jo...@antarean.org> writes: >> > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 08:03:25 PM Mick wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 29 Dec 2015 17:37:25 lee wrote: >> >> > Are we at the point where users are accepting to have to install and >> >> > maintain a fully fledged RDBMS just for a single application which >> >> > doesn't even need a database in the first place? >> >> >> >> Yes, a sad state of affairs indeed. I was hoping for the last 5-6 years >> >> that someone who can code would come to their senses with this >> >> application >> >> and agree that not all desktop application use cases require some >> >> enterprise level database back end architecture, when a few flat data >> >> files >> >> have served most users perfectly fine for years. I mean, do I *really* >> >> need a database for less that 60 entries in my address book?!! >> > >> > I'm no longer convinced a database isn't needed. >> > Kmail1 was slower than kmail2 is these days. >> >> We are talking here about a single application. Are users nowadays >> generally willing, inclined and in the position to deploy a RDBMS just >> in order to use a single application? Can they be expected to run >> several RDBMSs when the next application comes along and suggests mysql >> instead of postgresql? > > Most applications use a database of one type or another. > Flatfiles are a bad idea when performance is important with large datasets.
Then why don't they all use postgresql or mysql? It might then make sense to install either of them. > My email is a large dataset. Not every large dataset is suited to be stored in a database like mysql or postgresql. That's particularly true for email. >> Ironically, in this case you require the RDBMS to be able to use an >> application which is too unstable to be used even without one. Why not >> use a better application for the same purpose instead? You wouldn't >> have to worry about your emails then. > > I don't worry about my emails. > I find kmail2 to be more stable and usable then kmail1. I'm surprised you're not worried when it seems not unusual that kmail becomes unstable and even randomly deletes email.
