Re: Databases are too easy.

[ET LoWNOISE <et () grex cyberspace org>]

To "innovate" doesnt mean to solve a problem, in addition considering how 
programing languages are, then we can say that any programing language is 
dumb just because they are "simple" (and simple is gooood).

If someone can't afford AI, and adding a DB solves the problem, then whats 
the issue if its all well and good?.

Just my opinion.

ET



On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Dave Aitel wrote:

> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Storage
>
> One of the things people do is they "innovate" by adding a database to
> everything. It's like this:
>
> 1. Problem
> 2. Problem + Database
> 3. SOLVED!
>
> This is all well and good, but I always get a nagging feeling in the back of
> my head like something is wrong. SQL is a dumb language for most problems.
> When people do databases, it's often because what they really want is AI,
> but they can't afford it.
>
> As a side note: consider the problems with defining target hosts in a
> database. The naive solution is to do so by IP address. This is silly
> because:
> 1. IP Addresses Change
> 2. Hosts share IP addresses
> 3. Hosts have more than one IP address.
>
> Not an easy problem to solve...but it's certainly something you wouldn't
> want to key by IP address. Eventually you get around to wanting to your host
> to be an object, and you go the object store route, and then you want to
> have a distributed object store that your program can work on, and then you
> want a language that can properly do distributed programming on objects.
> That language isn't OpenMP and C++.
>
> It's also for these reasons that CANVAS doesn't do OS detection by host, but
> rather by service (aka port, usually).
>
> -dave
_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list
Dailydave () lists immunitysec com
http://lists.immunitysec.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave