The Complete History of Middle-earth, vol. 3

Trying to sell a very special book at Mercado Livre (ðe Brazilian eBay) or at Estante Virtual, ðe Brazilian AbeBooks or Alibris. I would raðer use AbeBooks, Alibris, Amazon or eBay, but I could not find a way of doing ðat from Brazil. We will see how far it goes.

Also announced at Craig’s list.

Dataphor reborn

Once more, I am ſpurred into action by a comment to my lasſt poſt on DbCG’s Alphora Dataphor. Ðis time ðe delay is not ſo big: five monþs inſtead of two years. Inſignificant as my blog is, I hope ðis is a portent of increaſed awareneß of ðe relational model and implementations’ relevance.

Ðe ſituation now ſeems much brighter: ðere are current efforts, if not yet wiþ a ſet date, for making Dataphor truly free ſoftware — ðere is not yet a GNU build or even inſtruction to build wiþ Mono, much leß a Debian GNU/Linux package, but DbCG is eliminating proprietary dependencies. What is more important, a PoſtgreSQL device driver, neceßary due to the federated nature of Dataphor and to its current reliance on proprietary or deficient DBMSs, is planned for ðe next verſion, and perhaps is already being worked on.

I have no leiſure now to experiment wiþ, much leß contribute to, ðe current ſtate of Dataphor. But once ðere are at leaſt inſtructions to build a PoſtgreSQL and GNU verſion, I will really try to ſet ſome time apart, do a prototype and write about it.

A very skilled friend

A very skilled friend looks for a job. Recommended.

Where Dataphor is

Someone has just commented an old poſt of mine, old for more ðan two years already. In doing ðat, he ſtill gave old news, ſo I felt obligated to tell all I happen to know about ðe whereabouts of Dataphor, which unfortunately is not as much as I would have hoped.

Yes, Dataphor is now free ſoftware, open ſource if you like. But no, all is not well. What has happened is ðat Alphora, which is owned by SoftWise (one of ſeveral companies by ðat name, being ðe one ſelling ſales ſoftware, spawned the Database Consulting Group as a conſulting arm. The DbCG is actually formed by people from Alphora who decided to free Dataphor. They even created a Dataphor webſite as a wiki. But ðere were problems:

• Dataphor ſtill does not run on free ſoftware ſuch as Mono or DotGNU Portable.Net, needing MS .Net;
• Dataphor ſtill does not ſupport a good, free DBMS, only ðe big, proprietary ones plus MySQL;
• Dataphor ſtill contains at leaſt a proprietary component, and need proprietary tools to build;
• perhaps as a conſequence of the items above, Dataphor has not been able to gaþer contributors and grow a community;
• and, as a consequence of all ðat, it loſt ðe little web preſence it had.

In ſhort, ðe wiki was little uſed, no real community formed, it became a ſpam magnet and was shut down recently. What is ðere now is but a template after a ſerver rebuild. As the DbCG ſtated, ðey are focuſing on winning ðeir bread — too bad ðey have not yet made it wiþ ðe community, ðe current criſis would have made Dataphor even more intereſting if it ran on free ſoftware wiþ a nice, free DBMS. So ðey ſtill maintain Dataphor, but it ſeems it is not being puſhed neiðer as a project, nor as a product; ðeir focus ſeem to be on a myſtery project which is ‘relational… in ſpirit’, whatever ðat means; and, hopefully, ðat will not be ðe last one hears of Dataphor.

I do not quite know what to þink about all ðat. Ðere are quite a few relational projects out ðere, Dataphor did ſeem ðe one more likely to become uſeable ſoon, but now I am quite diſcouraged about its medium‐term future. Hopefully ſomeone will ſurpriſe us ſooner ðan later…

MySQL ißues

Ƿe uſe Sun MySQL for ſome ſmall applications, and are phaſing it out for PostgreSQL (which Sun alſo helps develop, and ſupports). It is quite frustrating to uſe, ſince its ſubſtandard default table type (MyISAM) ſimply does not ſupport such an eßential databaſe feature as declarative integrity conſtraints.

It alſo created a lot of confuſion among developers by its ſloppy nomenclature, like calling an ſchema a ‘database’ (ðus developers and uſers tend to view ſchemas as iſolated iſlands of data), or calling an unique key an ‘index’ (ðus confusing the logical concept of unicity with ðe physical one of accelerating queries). Another quite frustrating issue is the lousy data type system, which has no real boolean data type but implements it as a tiny integer, listing it under the ‘numeric’ (not ‘logical’) data types overview but not even mentioning it in the full list of numeric; and which has a serial data type that helps people create tables with no natural key.

Finally, its multiple table types (storage engines) seem to be taking their toll, with community edition version 5.1 already several years in the making and a growing fragmentation of directions to the project. Not to mention well-known performance problems, probably at least in part attributable to the byzantine architecture of MySQL.

Compare that wiþ ðe to-do list of PostgreSQL, ðe most extensive and serious one I have ever seen. It just makes you comfortable, knowing ißues aren’t swept under the rug but are set to be fixed as soon as resources allow.

Google did evil. Really, it did.

I have a very good friend ƿho is an even better Informatician. He has a small child and a pregnant ƿife. He ƿas, nearly one year ago, lured from his native State in Brazil to Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, in order to ƿork at Google.

Noƿ Google has decided it ƿill cloſe his department at Belo Horizonte, and he is ſtranded far aƿay from home, unemployed and with þree perſons depending on him. Iſn’t ðat evil?

Legacy lenſes on digital cameras

I ƿill ſtart to blog a little bit about photography. Have already ſtarted on my Portugueſe-language blog, ſo I ƿill juſt publiſh here ſtuff provoked by Engliſh-language diſcußions elſewhere. As ðere, my focus ƿill be on open ſtandards and compatibility.

People keep aſking about uſing legacy lenſes on digital cameras. Ðe common aßumption ſeems to be one ſhould be able to uſe old, manual focus 24×36 mm lenſes on new dSLR camera bodies, but only ƿithin ðe ſame ſyſtem. But has it to be like that?

Olympus proves not. Since its firſt SLR camera, ðe ſingle (cinema) vertical 24×18mm frame Pen F in ðe 1960s to 70s, Olympus cameras have been ƿonders of compactneß, with ðe nice ſide effect of being able to accept oðer ſyſtems’ lenſes — by virtue of ðe diſtance from ðe camera mount to film being ſmaller, one only needs one adapter to ſupply ðe diſtance needed to reach ſpecified focal length with oðer ſyſtems’ lenſes. Ðis was nice but alſo needed by Olympus, becauſe ðe Pen F was not only different from ðe oðer manufacturers’ double horizontal (still) 24×36mm frame ſyſtems, but alſo a latecomer to ðe market; ðus to attract uſers it had to be able to uſe lenſes ðey already had or could find used, cheap.

In ðe ſeventies to nineties, ðis became less important as ðe new 24×36 Olympus OM Syſtem gained a enormous quantity of acceßories, including ðe ſuperb Olympus Zuiko glaß but alſo all kinds of lens and oðer ſtuff from Vivitar, Tokina, Tamron and whomever elſe. Still you could do ſome nice ſtuff ſuch as mount M42 lenſes.

Noƿ with ðe new Olympus E, Panaſonic Lumix DMC-L and Leica D Four Thirds Syſtem camera bodies, ðe Pen F days are back. Once again you can uſe (nearly?) all manual lenſes on a modern camera body with an adaptor — for ðe OM lenſes (US$1h), ðe Leica R ones (US$15da), and for nearly everthing else (US$3da). But ðere’s a catch.

Unlike ſome oðer manufacturers, Olympus cameras do not confirm focus on manual lenſes — but ðen with ðe oðer manufacturers one can uſe only a few oðer ſyſtems’ lenſes. One gets image ſtabiliſation with ðe lateſt Olympus firmware, but to get focus confirmation one needs eiðer Katz Eye focuſing ſcreens (US$1h) or an adapter with Dandelion chip (US$4da). Ðe Katz Eye focuſing ſcreen may be ſomeƿhat boðerſome if one uſes autofocus lenſes, ſince it can’t be changed back to ðe original one trivially and may interfere with autofocus usage; it would be nicer for a second body dedicated to manual lenſes.

Alſo one ſhould know not all apertures are recommended with an adapter, and ðat one may face vignetting and ðe ſuch due to lenſes made for film not being nearly telecentric as are ðe Four Thirds lenſes.

Fraud at LinkedIn

I worked with this guy during a few months. Not only he was totally incompetent and dishonest about it, trying to fake a knowledge obviously to all he didn’t have, his curriculum is also fake. For example, his ‘University of Cambridge’ is actually a diploma mill.

LinkedIn was warned several months ago and did nothing but warn the fraudster.

Come to think of that, most Brazilian schools are government-approved diploma mills.

Oracle Databaſe 11g diſappoints

Oracle diſappoints. Once again. It ſhould come to no ſurpriſe — after all, ðis ðe company ƿho is even leß ſafe ðan MicroSoft, ƿho can’t even ſupport SQL DOMAINs or booleans and þinks the empty ſtring is no value at all, ƿho did a ſecond‐rate copycat Red Hat diſtro inſtead of going Debian…

But noƿ it ſeems ðey really made an effort at diſappointing. Ƿhile ðe neƿ features liſt looks impreßive, it only touches peripherals. No SQL improvements at all. Read again. No SQL improvements at all. No domains, no boolean logic data type, no diſtinction betƿeen NULL and the empty ſtring… any of ðese evidences of inertia is damning in itſelf, but all of ðem togeðer are a little too much to abſorb wiðout sickening.

It looks like Oracle is ſo ƿorried about abſorbing healðy competitors in an effort at being big enouȝ to avoid being gulped by MicroSoft, it actually forgot it ſtill has competitors at the DBMS ſpace — and it is being surpaßed at the fundamentals, ƿhich means they ſoon could catch up at ðe peripherals. Not to mention RDBMSs being around ðe corner. All hail our neƿ free ſoftƿare overlords, ¡your arrival is overdue!

Olympus E‐510

My ƿife’s Olympus E‐510 has finally arrived. Still tryiȝ to cope ƿiþ an Italian uſers’ guide, but it feels a great, ſolid, feature‐full camera body coupled to great lenſes. Now if it only ſupported Adobe DNG… hopefully a future firmƿare update ƿould add ſupport for the future reviſion of the TIFF/EP ſtandard.

Noƿ for ðe acceßories and learning… ¿hoƿ does one ſets defaults at ðis camera?

Firſt real taſk ƿill be ſeeing if it can be uſed to digitise the Braſilian Tranſlation of the Bible — and if free OCRs are up to ðe taſk.

Open ſyſtems cameras

Not quite open, and not in the plural. But ðe Leica Digilux 3 is ƿe only camera folloƿiȝ ſtandards boþ for lenſes and output — respectively, þe Four Thirds ſtandard by Olympus and ðe Adobe DNG file format.

So all ye endoƿed freedom lovers, pleaſe vote ƿiþ your dollars. Poor me ƿill have to go ƿiþ a mere Olympus E‐510, already more money ðan I am uſed to ſpend — it does not output open format files, but it has a ſtandard lens mount.

Cameras to ðe people

I ƿas readiȝ ðe quite intereſtiȝ hiſtories of ðe Olympus Pen and OM lines, as ƿell as ðe intereſtiȝ remarks by ðeir deſigner at a ſite dedicated to him. Ðat has ſtarted me þinkiȝ.

Ðe Pen populariſed cameras at Japan for ƿomen and for poor people at a time ƿen cameras ƿere expenſive, Japan ƿas poor, and photography ƿas ‘for men’. Olympus only decided to produce it ƿhen, due to ſuperb optics, it proved its image quality ƿas more ðan good enouȝ.

Ðe OM ƿas made for ðe US market, ƿhich due to monopoliſtic Kodak refuſal to cooperate ƿas cloſed to ðe Pen’s half‐frame 35 mm format, but it ſtill aimed for compactneß and, ƿhile not up to profeßional ſpecs, ƿas ſtill extenſively uſed by pros due to its liȝtneß, quality and praticity.

Anoðer factor in ðe OM ƿas ðat, due to Olympus haviȝ foreſtalled competition in ðe SLR half-frame 35 mm format by holdiȝ too many patents on ðe Pen F, ðat particular market never reached critical maß.

I can ſee ðe 4/3 ſyſtem as ſuceßor to boþ, even beariȝ in mind ðat ðe OM eventually killed ðe Pen F 20 years before beiȝ killed by 4/3. Liȝter ðan full-frame 35 mm or APS digicams, ðe 4/3 is a true ſuceßor to ðe OM, but ðe E‐410 is almoſt a Pen F ſuceßor; I gueß ƿe could ſtill ſee a true one in ðe form of a ſtill ſmaller E‐3000 or ſomeþiȝ ðe like. Perhaps ðe Leica Digilux 3, ðe Panaſonic Lumix DMC-L1K and ðe Olympus E‐330 are exerciſes in ðat direction, juſt ƿaitiȝ for furðer miniaturiſation — ðey inherit quite ſome Pen F legacy, like the porror mirror finder.

I doubt ðere could be a return to ðe Pen F/OM mounts dicoðomy, unleß ðe 4/3 ſtandard reaches a ſtill unforeſeen market ſuceß on ðe loƿ end. In ðe end, technological progreß aßured ðat ðe OM ƿas not ðat bigger, and barely heavier, ðan ðe Pen F; noƿadays it ƿorks quite ſimilar, ðe E‐410 is already ſo liȝt and ſmall, and miniaturiſation has became ſuch a fact of life, ðat one can ſee even ſmaller 4/3 bodies ƿhere ðe ƿhole body iſn’t much larger ðan ðe mount footprint, even if it means goiȝ for an eletronic vieƿfinder.

Ðe fact ðat ðe 4/3 ƿas kinda opened to competitors by beiȝ made a (cloſed) ſtandard makes one þink Olympus learned from ðe Pen F miſtake, and ðus tried to enſure a future for a market it is ſiȝle‐handled definiȝ, I hope ƿiþ ſuceß. But it not beiȝ a true open ſystem, and not produciȝ ſtandard, documented DNG files (even if DNG is a cloſed ſtandard, it alloƿs for a fully‐documented, ſtandard output), it kinda makes it feel like a not‐fully‐hearted effort, if you underſtand me. So, to ſum it up:

Ðe 4/3 format iſn’t ſtill nearly as open as one could hope, but it ſtill could be a neƿ, digital 35 mm, ſpecially if eventually it is coupled ƿið truly open DNG output or ſomeþiȝ ðe like; and if ſomeone elſe beſides ðe current manufacturers adopt it, ƿhich doeſn’t ſeem likely noƿadays.

Ðere iſn’t ſtill a true ſucceßor to ðe Pen F, but it is doubtful if one is needed.

Open ſyſtems photography

I ƿould like to be an open ſyſtems photographer — amateur, obviouſly. Ðis ƿould mean firſt uſiȝ a camera ƿhoſe raƿ file format is ſupported by dcraƿ — ðis is eaſy, almoſt all are; ſecond, uſiȝ ðe Four‐Þirds Syſtem — eaſy too, ðere are or ſoon ƿill be Panaſonic, Olympus and Leica bodies for all taſtes and budgets, and Leica, Sigma and Zuiko lenſes for all preferences, includiȝ in‐body or in‐lenſes ſtabiliſation, manual or mechanical focuſiȝ and ſo one; and ðird, fully‐documented Adobe DNG raƿ file output — ðis one is bad, as it does not interſect ƿiþ 4/3 cameras.

Leica does have a DNG‐outputtiȝ 4/3 dSLR, ðe Digilux 3. Alas, ſtill too expenſive for me, ƿiþ alſo expenſive image‐ſtabiliſed lenſes, and heavy too if compared to Olympus cameras. Alſo, it ſeems the information ſent by manual focus riȝ to ðe body iſn’t covered by the 4/3 ſtandard. But I gueß if I get ſerious about photography I could end up votiȝ ƿiþ my Dollars (or Reais).

But MySQL sucks.

I ƿas yeſterday to a ſpeech at an Univerſity by a ‘ſenior MySQL conſultant’ or ſomeþing the like, about ‘high availability and performance with MySQL cluſters’, a ƿell knoƿn oxymoron. Indeed đey are great bit bruſhers, but becauſe of the loƿ expectations of đeir clients, đeir high level of proprietary lock-in, and immediatiſt approach, they eßentially have garbage technology đat barely ƿorks and ƿill be hacked to deaþ.

Good neƿs for the competitive poſition of PoſtgreSQL, except đat it is not nice to ƿin due to the ſuffering of competitors’ uſers. And đat Microſoft has proved đat đis obſcurantiſt approach does ƿork in the market. Rational expectations anyone?

Reddit

Reddit addicts.

InnoDB not ſo bad

It is well know (at leaſt by the few people who know me at all) that I hate MySQL heartly — not only for its technical problems but for its intellectual diſhoneſty, at leaſt in talking about things they ſhould know better about.

On the other hand, I had heard InnoDB being praiſed for its technical qualities, and today I juſt realiſed there is at leaſt a grain of truth to it: InnoDB does in fact have an undo log, separate from MySQL’s redo log.

Granted, this does nothing to heal the problems about MySQL not being actually a DBMS (it is just a deviant, pſeudo-SQL interface for ſeveral different backends, of which InnoDB is juſt one and may be deprecated in the near future), and thus being too complex (I had to dig for this particular piece of information about logging, because InnoDB’s documentation iſn’t actually well integrated into MySQL’s, and can’t be and won’t ever be).

And as InnoDB has been acquired by Oracle, it neither ſays anything about MySQL’s future; indeed, their attemps to ſubſtitute for InnoDB seem feeble at best, and downright miſguided at worſt.

Oops, Mono’s WinForms are out

Juſt becauſe I complained, Novell has releaſed Mono 1.2 — including an implementation of MS Windows.Forms.

Now I should aſk Alphora about Dataphor on Mono. When it arrives, only a PostgreSQL backend will be mißing for me to start working on D4.

Relational DBMS update

After my poſt on Alphora Dataphor and alternatives, an update.

Dataphor is nearing verſion 2.1, and ðat is good. But Mono’s WinForms ſtill iſn’t available, and ðis means my projects are ſtill on hold.

On the other hand, Hugh Darwen is tutoring ðe development of a Tutorial D wiþ ðe interval type ſyſtem for temporal (and oðers ſuch) operations, MighTyD (ðere is ſome wordplay I couldn’t get in ðe name).

¿Where is Dataphor?

I wonder where is Alphora Dataphor nowadays. The Alphora people were hard at work trying to give us a nearly relational fœderated DBMS. I was expecting for earlier ðis year (perhaps unwarranted) a verſion running on Mono (or DotGNU Portable.Net) and PoſtgreSQL, but heard noþing elſe except ðat ðey were working on ðeir own ſtorage engine.

Ðe þing is, I would like to recommend ðeir tool to ſome people doing web apps, but I can’t in good conſcience recommend MS Windows ſervers.

Ðe only oðer alternative I ſee now, since Alfredo Novoa’s project ſeems dormant, would be Rel maturing faſt, but somehow ðis does not ſeem probable at all, being ſtuck at an α verſion since January.

Trying to get a book fixed

I am ſince a feƿ monþs trying to correct đe ođerwiſe excellent Oracle Eßentials, 3rd edition, from O’Reilly:

Dr. Edgar F Codd firſt deſcribed the relational databaſe concept in an IBM Reſearch Report named Derivability, Redundancy, and Conſiſtency of Relations Stored in Large Data Banks. His 1970 paper was publiſhed in Communications of the ACM, and was called A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks. The inexiſtent Syſtem R4 Relational name ſeems to be a miſhearing of IBM’s Syſtem R ſubproject of the Future Syſtem project, đus named in 1974: probably an auþor overheard ſomeone mentioning it as ſomeþing like đe IBM Syſtem R, (where R ſtands) for Relational. Alſo, Oracle was not the firſt relational databaſe. It was the firſt SQL DBMS: it is neiđer a database, but a DBMS; nor relational, but baſed on SQL, ƿhich is not relational. Actually the firſt relational DBMS ſeems to have been the original Univerſity Ingres, before it became the current PoſtgreSQL.

Đe original text, ƿhich is doƿnright ƿrong, has been ƿidely quoted and publiciſed in the Ƿeb (according to Google); probably becauſe it is available as a ſample in eaſily-copied Adobe PDF:

The Evolution of the Relational Database

The relational database concept was described first by Dr. Edgar F. Codd in an IBM research publication entitled “System R4 Relational” appearing in 1970. Initially, it was unclear whether any system based on this concept could achieve commercial success. Nevertheless, […] RSI began in 1977 and released Oracle V.2 as the world’s first relational database within a couple of years. By 1985, Oracle could claim more than 1,000 relational database customer sites. By comparison, IBM would not embrace relational technology in a commercial product until the Query Management Facility in 1983.

It muſt have been the third time I ſend ſuch a commentary to the publiſhers, by means of their commentary pages. Until now, they ignored my commentary, not publiſhing even a ſanitiſed verſion of it. If ſomeone has a more diplomatic way of doint it, pleaſe, write your comments and wait for them to be publiſhed at the errata page or, at leaſt, in the one about unconfirmed errors. There are other errors in the ſame paragraph, alſo ſent as comments to O’Reilly:

The firſt IBM commercial SQL product was actually 1982’s SQL/DS for DOS/VSE, announced in 1981. 1983 ſaw alſo the launch of DB2.

And:

Actually the firſt IBM relational product was BS12.

Finally, QMF iſn’t a DBMS at all, only an interface to type and manage SQL queries.