Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cimshop!davidm From: cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Comment on the "Third-Generation Database System Manifesto" Message-ID: Date: 30 Sep 90 07:51:59 GMT References: <21178@hercules.csl.sri.com> <30205@netnews.upenn.edu> Sender: davidm@cimshop.UUCP Distribution: comp Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California. Lines: 32 In-reply-to: aaron@grad2.cis.upenn.edu's message of 27 Sep 90 13:43:32 GMT In article <30205@netnews.upenn.edu> aaron@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Aaron Watters) writes: In article (I) write: > >Both papers were very interesting. Too bad there's such a schism in the >database community. > I wouldn't characterize it as a schism, I'd call it a healthy debate. Perhaps, but, thus far, I've only seen movement on one side of the debate. It's only `too bad' for vendors who want to claim their products are `next generation' without any objections. Or even complete with respect to the current generation. Why is it that criticism and disagreement is so often characterized as `bad' in the CS community? The most minor criticism seems to reduce some people to fuming, clawing, scorpions. EG, see the letters to the CACM in response to `Program Verification: the Very Idea.' Why think it only occurs within the CS community? Seems to be quite a schism in the government debating the budget deficits and how to solve them. Of course, discussion of that doesn't belong in comp.databases. -- ==================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043 ==================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"