NOSQL = Not Only SQL? (was Re: An open letter to the NoSQL community)

[Sam Johnston]

Evening all,

It seems to me that a sensible proposal has emerged from the discussion about the existing NoSQL moniker:

NOSQL = Not Only SQL

I like this (a lot) and consider it a clever play on words that puts a positive spin on it without losing momentum. Conversely, NoSQL is negative, artificially limiting and manufactures contention where there is (and need be) none. I'm not alone on this and the AJAX->Ajax example is an apt comparison. I'm sure we'll all agree that one should choose the right tool for the job, and that many of us realise there are many applications for which a relational database is an appropriate option (how many of you have already been looking at/talking about Amazon RDS?).

My intention then is to see if we can't get some consensus around this so we can move on. The current name is exclusive and divisive and looks like a temper tantrum to outsiders (e.g. most of the existing database industry). This trivial change resolves all of my concerns (and no doubt those of many of the other commentators) and is far better than the other alternatives (e.g. alt.db and post-relational/non-relational).

Sam

[eprpa...@gmail.com]

Please forgive me if I wonder why we have to satisfy you?  What happens if we decide not to satisfy your whims?

Chaz

[Eric Bergen]

Then the group continues to look short sighted and arrogant.

--
Eric Bergen
eric....@gmail.com
http://www.ebergen.net

[Stefan Fox]

"It says 'No Homers'. We're allowed to have one."

;)

[Sam Johnston]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 8:38 PM, <eprpa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please forgive me if I wonder why we have to satisfy you?  What happens if we decide not to satisfy your whims?

You'll no doubt continue to have your meetings and quite probably do some good work and I'll just wander off find another way to introduce the topic to enterprise users separately. Meanwhile people will continue to bitch about the name ad nauseum and continue to waste the group's most precious resource: time.  

Don't get me wrong... the only reason I'm persevering with this and spending my Sunday evening writing about it is because I believe in this group and don't have the spare cycles to establish one that meets my needs; the people who have contributed thus far are the rock stars of the field and I doubt anyone else could do a better job. However if the external view is that the group is dismissive, close-minded and arrogant then its' goals will not be met.

I've copied Eric's post on the subject below for those who missed it - seems he's OK with overloading the term as proposed... is there anyone who isn't? If so, why?

Sam

NoSQL: What's in a name?

Posted October 30, 2009

Depending on the circles you travel in, you might be aware of the whole NoSQL "movement". If not, I'm not going try and explain it at this time (explaining it is sort of the problem), but you can get the general idea from wikipedia.

I've spent the last couple of days at nosqleast and one of the hot topics here is the name "nosql". Understandably, there are a lot of people who worry that the name is Bad, that it sends an inappropriate or inaccurate message. While I make no claims to the idea, I do have to accept some blame for what it is now being called. How's that? Johan Oskarsson was organizing the first meetup and asked the question "What's a good name?" on IRC; it was one of 3 or 4 suggestions that I spouted off in the span of like 45 seconds, without thinking.

My regret however isn't about what the name says, it's about what it doesn't. When Johan originally had the idea for the first meetup, he seemed to be thinking Big Data and linearly scalable distributed systems, but the name is so vague that it opened the door to talk submissions for literally anything that stored data, and wasn't an RDBMS.

I don't have a problem with projects like Neo4J, Redis, CouchDB, MongoDB, etc, but the whole point of seeking alternatives is that you need to solve a problem that relational databases are a bad fit for. MongoDB and Voldemort for example set out to solve two very different problems and lumping them together under a single moniker isn't very meaningful. This is why people are continually interpreting nosql to be anti-RDBMS, it's the only rational conclusion when the only thing some of these projects share in common is that they are not relational databases.

The cat is out of the bag though, and the "movement" has enough momentum that I don't think it's going anywhere. And, I'm not really advocating that, it's had the effect of bringing a lot of attention to some very interesting projects, and that's a Good Thing. Maybe Emil Eifrem has the right idea by encouraging people to overload the term with Not Only SQL.

[Edward Ribeiro]

Wow, what a rudeness!!! I hope not others members of this community look like this guy... he tried to be ironic, but only showed a shorted sighted view.

[Chas.]

Let''s be clear: that is your belief and perhaps the belief of a few others.

 So far I have had 3 interviews with the national press about No Sql and that has never been an issue. I've put my "money where my mouth is"; I've released a "no sql" system to the open source community and it is the heart of my open source data storage system.

When I have talked to the press they want to know the obvious things: what is it all about, who is using the No Sql technology in operational systems, why did I use it, etc. Never once did anyone in the press tell me the name sounded arrogant, divisive,  dismissive, etc. What I noticed is the name did catch them, even if they weren't sure what it meant and why.

So because there are a few people that don't like the name, so be it. You can't make everyone happy.

Chaz

[Seth Johnson]

I think it's just a question of worrying about it or not.  People will debate the term, just to try to define things.  That doesn't mean the impression the term might bring to some onlookers needs to be worried about too much.  You can always say "because of misperceptions that can be attributed to the term NoSQL, I prefer to use the term X".  It is what it is, it's an identity.  If we all wore our hair long and named ourselves that way, you'd get the same effect.  If you want to make a more professional identity, then go ahead.  If it's disturbing to associate with a group named NoSQL, that's what you might need to do -- or spend some effort constantly bracketing your association with the group: "Now please understand, I don't much like that name they chose for themselves, but I like to monitor and interact with some of the leading lights, who are working together under the moniker NoSQL."  Maybe some places that would be de rigeur.

I personally have zero difficulties with the name NoSQL, however.

[Sam Johnston]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Chas. <eprpa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let''s be clear: that is your belief and perhaps the belief of a few others.

Right, and because it's not *your* believe it can be easily dismissed... that's pretty much exactly what Eric was getting at.

So because there are a few people that don't like the name, so be it. You can't make everyone happy.

No, but you can - and it's easy to do. There is no David & Goliath battle, nor any need whatsoever to "demonize a single opponent or group of opponents". Let me put it a different way: did you consider that perhaps many of the proponents of these "structured storage" systems (myself included) are unwilling protestants and don't appreciate being branded a "rebellion"? Did you also consider that the absence of SQL is largely irrelevant, and that it (or something like it) will almost certainly appear as the technology matures anyway?

Stop calling me NoSQL:

But the horror of it – they gave me a completely inappropriate moniker – ‘NoSQL’. First and foremost I exist to promote a storage style and thats what identifies me. I work with data in its natural and arbitrary forms. Therefore to make it seem like I represent a lack of something else is utterly missing the point. The SQL in NoSQL stands for Structured Query Language, which depends upon Fixed Structure Relational Data. Since I change the very nature of the data being stored, that SQL is not required or relevant is automatic and inconsequential.

 

Its like calling a under-the-ocean-mountain_range as NoIgloo. Its dead obvious igloos will not be found there. But calling that mountain range NoIgloo is a big disservice to visitors. You use that as a marketing term, attract people, then tell them that NoIgloo actually has nothing to do with Igloos – its got to do with mountains and oceans, and that they need to first unwind all the confusion they created in their minds due to NoIgloo and then go through a phase of reunderstanding mountains and oceans. And while they came prepared for a possibly warmer place given the name NoIgloo – it actually is a wet place so they need to again change their garments and equipment for the journey. A wholely avoidable situation. 

 

Were you even planning to explain why the status quo is superior, aside from being the status quo? I'm definitely with Dhananjay in hoping that the "field of software shall recover its glorious tradition of maintaining precision in communication by using accurate naming", but more importantly that we adopt sensible nomenclature that is not unnecessarily offensive to anyone.

Sam

[Kunthar]

If i say that, world is truly rectangle what could be possibly changed
in reality?
If you would like to add some value to this community you are welcome.
If you really eager to refute all of this "Nosql dilemma", please read
some more docs, test some sort of code and return to the base again.
I am not interested with non related, random garbage sentences trying
to define just a big bullsh.t.
As you have pointed before; my time is precious and you're stealing it.

My 2cents,

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."


\|/ Kunth

[Johannes Ernst]

FWIW, I think other more specific terms are going to take over discussion soon.

For example, a graph database has little to do with a distributed hash table, although both are called N[oO]SQL today. People will soon use those more specific terms instead of the umbrella term. I feel that's a given because if you look at them in sufficient detail, the use cases and business cases for many of the technologies under the N[oO]SQL umbrella are non-overlapping.

In the meantime, having a controversial (and perhaps slightly incorrect) umbrella term to convey "there is life beyond SQL" is not wrong in my view, regardless what its letters do or do not spell or whether there is agreement or not.

What about we spend our energies fleshing out those use and business cases instead of arguing (in particular ad hominem) about stuff that ultimately does not matter? ;-)

Cheers,

Johannes Ernst.

NetMesh Inc.

InfoGrid.org

[Sam Johnston]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Johannes Ernst <jernst+google.com@netmesh.us> wrote:

What about we spend our energies fleshing out those use and business cases instead of arguing (in particular ad hominem) about stuff that ultimately does not matter? ;-)

To be honest between this thread and dismissive, condescending and downright offensive comments from 3 of the 4 organisers I've all but given up on this echo chamber and will find another way to get the message across. It's remarkable that an otherwise good opportunity has been turned into an epic PR fail and it's increasingly clear that there's nothing new but a bad attitude.

Stu Charlton nails it with The Trouble with NoSQL in which he notes that "there's a real chance most NoSQL solutions will remain niches while RDBMS continue to dominate, because customers will force their vendors to scale them out"... the day before the Amazon RDS announcement no less. We've made an enormous investment in SQL over the last four decades and it's likely we'll need it (or something like it) in the future anyway. Get over it and get on with helping users discover the right tool for the job (SQL or otherwise).

Sam (who had to consult the urban dictionary to work out what the classy term "douchenozzle" means)

[Flinn Mueller]

Awesome, Is this thread over now?

[eprpa...@gmail.com]

I don't need to explain why the status quo is better.  I'm just happy with NoSql as it stands.

It seems to me you need to convince those of us that have been happy with the name, and that have added open source software to the mix that a change is necessary. You statements about the name being divisive, dismissive, etc is just your opinion and not backed by any facts.

Chaz

[eprpa...@gmail.com]

Good opportunity in your opinion. My experience says it is neither good nor bad - no one but you and small group think the name should be changed to mean something else. The rest of us are happy with where it is.

Chaz

[Sam Johnston]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:49 PM, <eprpa...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't need to explain why the status quo is better.  I'm just happy with NoSql as it stands.

It seems to me you need to convince those of us that have been happy with the name, and that have added open source software to the mix that a change is necessary. You statements about the name being divisive, dismissive, etc is just your opinion and not backed by any facts.

Here's a fact: you and a small but vocal minority have succeeded in turning at least one vocal proponent into an even more vocal opponent over the space of a few ill-conceived comments, and for what benefit?

It's all well and good that you've "added open source software to the mix" but for those of us who are trying to make sense of this technology on behalf of enterprise buyers (you know, the guys who'll actually end up paying for the software & services many of you will eventually be selling) it is absolutely critical that there be little or no [perceived] risk or you won't get so much as a toe in the door. Right now you (and I'm talking to the minority here - you know who you are) are your own worst enemies. What are we supposed to make of a company whose key staff are calling people (who are trying to help promote the technology no less) "douchenozzles" while telling them NOT to use it AND to STFU in the same breath?

As for this being "defensive job-protectionist antics", give me a break - I couldn't care less if any of you are successful (in truth I'd rather you all were). I'm not competing with you in any way and am paid only for my time trying to make sense of what is currently a very crowded and fast moving playing field.

In any case I can't imagine myself recommending any of these products for use outside of IT shops any time soon and expect that either SQL will be made to scale (ala Amazon RDS, which is apparently invisible to this group) or it will be made to work with non-relational datastores. Positioning yourselves in opposition to it is completely missing the point and doing everyone a grave disservice.

Sam

[eprpa...@gmail.com]

Sam, please add this to the beginning of your emails:

"This is how I see the world"

You came here telling us you didn't like how we talked about NoSql. You
came here telling us how we should see it. That isn't about to get
anyone following you. As I was told time and again: you can catch more
bees with sugar than vinegar.

Chaz

Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:49 PM, <eprpa...@gmail.com
> <mailto:eprpa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I don't need to explain why the status quo is better. I'm just
> happy with NoSql as it stands.
>
> It seems to me you need to convince those of us that have been happy
> with the name, and that have added open source software to the mix
> that a change is necessary. You statements about the name being
> divisive, dismissive, etc is just your opinion and not backed by any
> facts.
>
>
> Here's a fact: you and a small but vocal minority have succeeded in
> turning at least one vocal proponent into an even more vocal opponent
> over the space of a few ill-conceived comments, and for what benefit?
>
> It's all well and good that you've "added open source software to the
> mix" but for those of us who are trying to make sense of this technology
> on behalf of enterprise buyers (you know, the guys who'll actually end
> up paying for the software & services many of you will eventually be
> selling) it is absolutely critical that there be little or no
> [perceived] risk or you won't get so much as a toe in the door. Right
> now you (and I'm talking to the minority here - you know who you are)
> are your own worst enemies. What are we supposed to make of a company

> <http://cloudant.com/> whose key staff <http://cloudant.com/#about> are
> calling people <http://twitter.com/boorad/status/5351273742> (who are

> trying to help promote the technology no less) "douchenozzles

> <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douchenozzle>" while

> telling them NOT to use it AND to STFU in the same breath?
>
> As for this being "defensive job-protectionist antics

> <https://twitter.com/KirinDave/status/5376463507>", give me a break - I

> couldn't care less if any of you are successful (in truth I'd rather you
> all were). I'm not competing with you in any way and am paid only for my
> time trying to make sense of what is currently a very crowded and fast
> moving playing field.
>
> In any case I can't imagine myself recommending any of these products
> for use outside of IT shops any time soon and expect that either SQL
> will be made to scale (ala Amazon RDS, which is apparently invisible to
> this group) or it will be made to work with non-relational datastores.
> Positioning yourselves in opposition to it is completely missing the
> point

> <http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/50678-the-nosql-discussion-has-nothing-to-do-with-sql/fulltext> and

[eprpa...@gmail.com]

Sam,

As for turning one proponent into an opponent is pure bull. All we can
say is that we are happy with how we see things. If you see things
differently, so be it. It's impossible to make everyone happy, so why try?

Why do you feel compelled to have everyone see things your way?

Chaz

Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:49 PM, <eprpa...@gmail.com
> <mailto:eprpa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I don't need to explain why the status quo is better. I'm just
> happy with NoSql as it stands.
>
> It seems to me you need to convince those of us that have been happy
> with the name, and that have added open source software to the mix
> that a change is necessary. You statements about the name being
> divisive, dismissive, etc is just your opinion and not backed by any
> facts.
>
>
> Here's a fact: you and a small but vocal minority have succeeded in
> turning at least one vocal proponent into an even more vocal opponent
> over the space of a few ill-conceived comments, and for what benefit?
>
> It's all well and good that you've "added open source software to the
> mix" but for those of us who are trying to make sense of this technology
> on behalf of enterprise buyers (you know, the guys who'll actually end
> up paying for the software & services many of you will eventually be
> selling) it is absolutely critical that there be little or no
> [perceived] risk or you won't get so much as a toe in the door. Right
> now you (and I'm talking to the minority here - you know who you are)
> are your own worst enemies. What are we supposed to make of a company

> <http://cloudant.com/> whose key staff <http://cloudant.com/#about> are

> calling people <http://twitter.com/boorad/status/5351273742> (who are

> trying to help promote the technology no less) "douchenozzles

> <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douchenozzle>" while

> telling them NOT to use it AND to STFU in the same breath?
>
> As for this being "defensive job-protectionist antics

> <https://twitter.com/KirinDave/status/5376463507>", give me a break - I

> couldn't care less if any of you are successful (in truth I'd rather you
> all were). I'm not competing with you in any way and am paid only for my
> time trying to make sense of what is currently a very crowded and fast
> moving playing field.
>
> In any case I can't imagine myself recommending any of these products
> for use outside of IT shops any time soon and expect that either SQL
> will be made to scale (ala Amazon RDS, which is apparently invisible to
> this group) or it will be made to work with non-relational datastores.
> Positioning yourselves in opposition to it is completely missing the
> point

> <http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/50678-the-nosql-discussion-has-nothing-to-do-with-sql/fulltext> and

[Sam Johnston]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:24 PM, <eprpa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam,

 As for turning one proponent into an opponent is pure bull. All we can
say is that we are happy with how we see things. If you see things
differently, so be it. It's impossible to make everyone happy, so why try?

Why do you feel compelled to have everyone see things your way?

Not sure what's with the chain posting - I guess it's indicative of the amount of thought you're putting into your ironclad arguments. But we digress...

I wasn't aware that you were the official spokesman for the group so perhaps you too should add a "this is how I see the world" disclaimer. Indeed I've been speaking off-list with organisers & members who are far less combative and genuinely want to get everyone working together - it would be great if such talk weren't confined to private threads. I'm clearly not alone in my thinking - there are others within this group (and many more outside of it) who agree with my sentiment. It's a shame because there's also some extremely talented individuals who are coming across as tantrum throwing children. The sooner you get your s--t together so the rest of us can promote your work the better.

FWIW the Enterprise 2.0 "movement" is having similar machinations - read the following and s/Enterprise 2.0/NoSQL/:

Like it or not, large enterprises - the big name brands - have to work in structures and hierarchies that most E2.0 mavens ridicule but can’t come up with alternatives that make any sort of corporate sense. Therein lies the Big Lie. Enterprise 2.0 pre-supposes that you can upend hierarchies for the benefit of all. Yet none of that thinking has a credible use case you can generalize back to business types - except: knowledge based businesses such as legal, accounting, architects etc. Even then - where are the use cases? I’d like to know. In the meantime, don’t be surprised by the ‘fail’ lists that Mike Krigsman will undoubtedly trot out - that’s easy.

In the meantime, can someone explain to me the problem Enterprise 2.0 is trying to solve?

If you guys can work out how to a) scale SQL or b) make it work with your software then you will find yourselves far more relevant outside of your own little world. Picking a fight where there is none to be had is not only missing the point but doing you a grave disservice, especially when it would be so easy to make everyone happy.

Sam

[eprpa...@gmail.com]

Of course my opinions are mine and don't represent anyone else. But I'm
not here telling anyone their views are wrong and mine are right. I
believe that all views are acceptable. If, in your world you want to
speak as NoSql as Not Only Sql, so be it. But allow others with
different points of view to have those views. Don't preach and expect us
to be converts to your point of view because you have the view.

Chaz

Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:24 PM, <eprpa...@gmail.com
> <mailto:eprpa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Sam,
>
> As for turning one proponent into an opponent is pure bull. All we can
> say is that we are happy with how we see things. If you see things
> differently, so be it. It's impossible to make everyone happy, so
> why try?
>
> Why do you feel compelled to have everyone see things your way?
>
>
> Not sure what's with the chain posting - I guess it's indicative of the
> amount of thought you're putting into your ironclad arguments. But we
> digress...
>
> I wasn't aware that you were the official spokesman for the group so
> perhaps you too should add a "this is how I see the world" disclaimer.
> Indeed I've been speaking off-list with organisers & members who are far
> less combative and genuinely want to get everyone working together - it
> would be great if such talk weren't confined to private threads. I'm
> clearly not alone in my thinking - there are others within this group
> (and many more outside of it) who agree with my sentiment. It's a shame
> because there's also some extremely talented individuals who are coming
> across as tantrum throwing children. The sooner you get your s--t
> together so the rest of us can promote your work the better.
>
> FWIW the Enterprise 2.0 "movement" is having similar machinations

> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=1228&tag=trunk;content> - read the

[Jeremy Day]

My impression of this situation is that Sam is referring to proponents outside of the insular NOSQL community and are thus not encompassed by the "we" in "we are happy with how we see things."  What I mean is that there are larger communities that would and should be involved with the NOSQL community who might not because of a large amount of standoffishness from the NOSQL community.

Jeremy

[eprpa...@gmail.com]

Damm. do we have Jeremy Day == Sam Johnston? An alter-ego perhaps? lol.

Whether it is insular or not isn't an issue; it just is what it is. As I
said if you see things differently, so be it. Go out and promote your
own view of the world. Don't expect others to follow.

As someone that has written one of the nosql packages and put it in the
open source community, I have my view and when I talk to others - press
or otherwise - I promote my view. I won't promote your view since I
don't believe in "Not Only Sql". As for the name "NoSql" just think of
Jabberwocky - it is a made up word and can take on any meaning one likes.

In fact I think I am taking on the view promoted in the report mentioned
by Marin and written by Ian Varley: non-relational databases. So what
does NoSql mean to me - just that. Plain and simple.

Chaz

Jeremy Day wrote:
> My impression of this situation is that Sam is referring to proponents
> outside of the insular NOSQL community and are thus not encompassed by
> the "we" in "we are happy with how we see things." What I mean is that
> there are larger communities that would and should be involved with the
> NOSQL community who might not because of a large amount of
> standoffishness from the NOSQL community.
>
> Jeremy
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:24 AM, <eprpa...@gmail.com
> <mailto:eprpa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Sam,
>
> As for turning one proponent into an opponent is pure bull. All we can
> say is that we are happy with how we see things. If you see things
> differently, so be it. It's impossible to make everyone happy, so
> why try?
>
> Why do you feel compelled to have everyone see things your way?
>
> Chaz
>
> Sam Johnston wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:49 PM, <eprpa...@gmail.com
> <mailto:eprpa...@gmail.com>

[Flinn Mueller]

This is such a ridiculous subject to keep talking about. Can we just
stop responding at all to this type of post? I'm on this mailing list
to hear about NoSQL related topics not the nuances of group dynamics.
This isn't a clubhouse and we don't really need artificial labels to
make other people want to join our club. If the most you bring to the
discussion is how to label something or talk about how insular and off
putting an engineering community can be, please keep it off this list.

[Johannes Ernst]

+1.

Perhaps we can create a new mailing list called nosql-f...@googlegroups.com
(or perhaps nosql-pers...@googlegroups.com) and move all
these kinds of exchanges there? ;-)

[Lukas Eder]

At the recent O'Reilly Strata Conference, Mark Madsen has coined a new interpretation of what NoSQL could mean, when he displayed his "history of databases in no-tation".

;-)

[Emin Gün Sirer]

The entire N[oO]SQL industry is structured around an undefined
concept. Here's a step towards a better definition for NoSQL:

What is NoSQL and is it pornography?
http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/02/14/whats-nosql/

- egs

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "NOSQL" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to nosql-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to nosql-di...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nosql-discussion/07782c84-75dd-4a5a-b713-8ae824620991%40googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Lukas Eder]

Yes, I've just read your article today. Good points. We do need a new E.F.Codd to actually make sense of all the interesting, yet diverging and very vendor-specific ideas that only have one thing in common. The fact that they don't entirely rely on Codd's visions any longer.

Speaking of Codd, I have also found this article here quite interesting, by the way:

http://www.opensourceconnections.com/2013/12/11/codds-relational-vision-has-nosql-come-full-circle/

2013/12/14 Emin Gün Sirer <el33t...@gmail.com>

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "NOSQL" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/nosql-discussion/XaI4kCecFfI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to nosql-discussi...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to nosql-di...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nosql-discussion/CAPkFh0sgNnMfErpSc2jR5BqmnEu9oR8d1yO7SeWq%3DESY-04DAg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Eric Evans]

On Dec 14, 2013 1:58 PM, "Lukas Eder" <lukas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At the recent O'Reilly Strata Conference, Mark Madsen has coined a new interpretation of what NoSQL could mean, when he displayed his "history of databases in no-tation".

Honestly,  masturbation would be more constructive than rehashing this topic yet again.

> Am Sonntag, 1. November 2009 20:31:27 UTC+1 schrieb Sam Johnston:
>>
>> Evening all,
>>
>> It seems to me that a sensible proposal has emerged from the discussion about the existing NoSQL moniker:
>>
>>> NOSQL = Not Only SQL
>>
>>
>> I like this (a lot) and consider it a clever play on words that puts a positive spin on it without losing momentum. Conversely, NoSQL is negative, artificially limiting and manufactures contention where there is (and need be) none. I'm not alone on this and the AJAX->Ajax example is an apt comparison. I'm sure we'll all agree that one should choose the right tool for the job, and that many of us realise there are many applications for which a relational database is an appropriate option (how many of you have already been looking at/talking about Amazon RDS?).
>>
>> My intention then is to see if we can't get some consensus around this so we can move on. The current name is exclusive and divisive and looks like a temper tantrum to outsiders (e.g. most of the existing database industry). This trivial change resolves all of my concerns (and no doubt those of many of the other commentators) and is far better than the other alternatives (e.g. alt.db and post-relational/non-relational).
>>
>> Sam
>>

[Chas.]

Man do I agree with you... Old subject.. Rehash... And no one cares.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nosql-discussion/CAEHpzv-WtwU23de4XyrJqAFRvqh5_W55dFD57FXug3FjF9qoDw%40mail.gmail.com.