Dave Odom wrote:
Well, it seems like I got some, a pitiful few, to think outside the box. But, sadly, most still drink the Rochester kook-aid
This made me curious -- "the Rochester kook-aid".
It's seemed to me that 'Rochester' has been pushing customers
towards a purer SQL approach for a long time. I'm not at all clear
how this could be interpreted as "the Rochester kook-aid" in terms
of how you present things here. Are you saying that that's a bad
But beyond that, I asked a question quite a while ago and cannot
recall seeing how you responded.
I described how I used SQL Server to create a trivial database and
then opened it in NotePad to make changes through "native access". I
could've written a C program, but NotePad was just too easy.
Oddly enough, SQL Server did _not_ prevent me from making any
changes. You can probably guess the result. Did I misconfigure SQL
Server or miss one of its important features?
I then went on to wonder how Oracle might prevent similar "native
access" to its tables. I'm currently not in a position to test it. I
haven't even touched Oracle for at least 15 years, so I really have
no idea how things have progressed. If a mechanism exists for
prevention, I'd be interested in knowing about it. Likewise for any
other 'real RDBMS' that you can help illuminate.
Please describe the protections that such 'real RDBMSs' provide and
how they're superior. I think that's an important point. If they can
provide better protection, then we'd all be better off knowing about it.