On 05/18/2013 12:52 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
I've done a lot of database work, going back to Ingres and QUEL. I'm one
of those weirdos who actually enjoys databases...I think most people find
database work to be dry and boring, but I find it fascinating and
stimulating. I've seen DTR applications used in production but have never
had any exposure at all to the software...having something to actually *do*
with it, like this node database for HECnet, is great stuff, and a great way
to learn.
I hope you've never used Microsoft Access. ;)
No, I haven't. That requires Windows, and I've never used Windows.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 2013-05-18 18:49, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 05/18/2013 12:45 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
I like the idea of giving us all write access. Maybe you can set up
regular dumps of the database for restoration in case someone screws up.
I can certainly do that. It just becomes a question of people might need to
reenter information in case a rollback has to go far. Also trickier to
realize if "corruption" actually have happened perhaps.
On the other hand, I could atleast have permissions that only allowed random
people to modify data, not add new, nor delete.
That's a really good idea.
Another suggestion of having one table per area was given, which should be pretty doable as well. There are some issues that become more burdensome, but it might be worth looking into.
It would give some of us a chance to learn Datatrieve in a real-world
scenario. I myself have never worked with it and would like to learn it; I
learn best by doing.
Indeed. Very true. Datatrieve is not that different from something like MySQL
really. Different syntax, and some different capabilities (mostly more
restricted), but otherwise not that strange. If you've ever played with such
things.
I've done a lot of database work, going back to Ingres and QUEL. I'm one
of those weirdos who actually enjoys databases...I think most people find
database work to be dry and boring, but I find it fascinating and
stimulating. I've seen DTR applications used in production but have never
had any exposure at all to the software...having something to actually *do*
with it, like this node database for HECnet, is great stuff, and a great way
to learn.
I've been trying to avoid databases all my life, but when I got my hands on Datatrieve I had to come up with some kind of project to use it in, since I like to test all my PDP-11 software. And the first thing I started on was the nodename database, and right now it has started to pay off a little, since I can easily do various things with the data, and it has turned out to be helpful a couple of times...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On Sat, 18 May 2013, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 05/18/2013 12:45 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
I like the idea of giving us all write access. Maybe you can set up
regular dumps of the database for restoration in case someone screws up.
I can certainly do that. It just becomes a question of people might need to
reenter information in case a rollback has to go far. Also trickier to
realize if "corruption" actually have happened perhaps.
On the other hand, I could atleast have permissions that only allowed random
people to modify data, not add new, nor delete.
That's a really good idea.
I second this. How flexible is Datatrieve's permissions system?
It would give some of us a chance to learn Datatrieve in a real-world
scenario. I myself have never worked with it and would like to learn it; I
learn best by doing.
Indeed. Very true. Datatrieve is not that different from something like MySQL
really. Different syntax, and some different capabilities (mostly more
restricted), but otherwise not that strange. If you've ever played with such
things.
I've done a lot of database work, going back to Ingres and QUEL. I'm one
of those weirdos who actually enjoys databases...I think most people find
database work to be dry and boring, but I find it fascinating and
stimulating. I've seen DTR applications used in production but have never
had any exposure at all to the software...having something to actually *do*
with it, like this node database for HECnet, is great stuff, and a great way
to learn.
I hope you've never used Microsoft Access. ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments
On Sat, 18 May 2013, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-05-18 18:45, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-05-18 18:35, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 05/18/2013 12:04 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Is there a way we can get write access to the db? That way we can
keep our
own info up to date.
I was thinking about it. Pros and cons. Easier for updating. Potentially
anyone erasing the whole thing. The granularity of permissions is by the
whole table.
It would perhaps be possible to do something that everyone had their own
table, and then I'd just pull data from all of them for various
tasks. But
then I'd have potential name collision issues and what not...
Actually, thinking a bit more, I could probably do some web interface
with
people having their own passwords and the ability to update just
their data
that way. Needs some thinking perhaps, but maybe the most doable.
Anyone else have some ideas on how to do it?
I like the idea of giving us all write access. Maybe you can set up
regular dumps of the database for restoration in case someone screws up.
I can certainly do that. It just becomes a question of people might need
to reenter information in case a rollback has to go far. Also trickier
to realize if "corruption" actually have happened perhaps.
On the other hand, I could atleast have permissions that only allowed
random people to modify data, not add new, nor delete.
One thing I always like to have is some kind of uniformity. That is
always harder to get with many people entering data. But I guess that
can be addressed by having some explicit guidelines.
Yeah, I've noticed that about INFO.TXT. Not everyone follows the same syntax.
Right now, the uniformity (as far as it goes) comes from just my head.
Always good when your head has uniformity.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments
On 2013-05-18 18:45, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-05-18 15:00, Brian Hechinger wrote:
Is there a way we can get write access to the db? That way we can
keep our own info up to date.
I was thinking about it. Pros and cons. Easier for updating. Potentially
anyone erasing the whole thing. The granularity of permissions is by the
whole table.
It would perhaps be possible to do something that everyone had their own
table, and then I'd just pull data from all of them for various tasks.
But then I'd have potential name collision issues and what not...
Actually, thinking a bit more, I could probably do some web interface
with people having their own passwords and the ability to update just
their data that way. Needs some thinking perhaps, but maybe the most
doable.
Anyone else have some ideas on how to do it?
You could do separate mini-dbs for each area that each person can modify.
Yes. That is what the separate table reference meant pretty much. Hmm, I could perhaps do that, with only me being able to add to the tables, but designated persons being able to modify data in there.
Definitely a possibly solution.
Johnny
Johnny
-brian
On May 17, 2013, at 12:03, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-05-17 16:18, Bob Armstrong wrote:
On 2013-05-16 18:28, Johnny Billquist wrote:
This is a totally volontary thing. I've finally come to the point
where I think that there are a few more pieces of data on nodes
that would be nice/useful to have from time to time.
Much of the information you want (all of it, I think) is already
in the
INFO.TXT file -
$ type legato""::info.txt
....
ADDR |NAME |OWNER |EMAIL |HARDWARE |OS
|LOCATION |NOTES
2.1 |LEGATO|Bob Armstrong |bob at jfcl.com |simh
|OpenVMS
7.3|Milpitas, CA, US|DCN Multinet Ro
uter
2.2 |POCO | | |MicroVAX-2000 |
| |6MB, RD54, TK50
2.4 |MEZZO | | |PDP-11/53 |RSTS
| |3.5MB, 2xRA73,TK70, SCSI
2.6 |LARGO | | |VAX-11/730
|VMS 4.7
| |R80, 2xRA81, RL02, RX02, TU80
2.7 |CODA | | |DS20E
|OpenVMS
8.3| |
2.9 |DIVISI| | |VAX-8350
|VMS 5.5-2
| |16MB, RA81, RA82, TU81+
2.10 |ADAGIO| | |VAXserver 3900
|VMS 6.0
| |RA81, RX50, 2xRD54, Kennedy 9610, RRD50, RF31,
2xRF71,
RF72, SQ703, Exabyte 8505
2.11 |LENTO | | |PDP-11/73
|RSX-11M+
| |2xRD32, RX50, RL02, Kennedy 9600
2.12 |JENSEN| | |DEC 2000 axp
|OpenVMS
7.3| |
2.13 |ZITI | | |eBox-3310
|Ubuntu
| |
2.14 |MULTIA| | |Multia UDB
|OpenVMS
7.3| |
2.15 |PAVANE| | |DECstation 3100
|Ultrix
| |MIPS box w/DECnet-Ultrix
2.16 |SKETTI| | |HP ProLiant ML110G4
|Ubuntu
| |
2.18 |DSRVB1| | |DECserver-200/MC |
| |
2.19 |DSRVB2| | |DECserver-200/MC |
| |
FWIW, keeping a central database up to date is going to be a
nightmare -
that's why we invented the INFO.TXT files; so each sysadmin could
locally
update his own information.
Yes. I know... :-)
Which I said this is all voluntary and so on. I've just felt that
the INFO.TXT is not really working that well either. At least not
from my point of view. I'm willing to try different things. I could
consider some automatic scraping and population of the nodename
database from some distributed sources as well, if we can come up
with something that seems reasonable.
Oh, and thanks.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On 05/18/2013 12:45 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
I like the idea of giving us all write access. Maybe you can set up
regular dumps of the database for restoration in case someone screws up.
I can certainly do that. It just becomes a question of people might need to
reenter information in case a rollback has to go far. Also trickier to
realize if "corruption" actually have happened perhaps.
On the other hand, I could atleast have permissions that only allowed random
people to modify data, not add new, nor delete.
That's a really good idea.
It would give some of us a chance to learn Datatrieve in a real-world
scenario. I myself have never worked with it and would like to learn it; I
learn best by doing.
Indeed. Very true. Datatrieve is not that different from something like MySQL
really. Different syntax, and some different capabilities (mostly more
restricted), but otherwise not that strange. If you've ever played with such
things.
I've done a lot of database work, going back to Ingres and QUEL. I'm one
of those weirdos who actually enjoys databases...I think most people find
database work to be dry and boring, but I find it fascinating and
stimulating. I've seen DTR applications used in production but have never
had any exposure at all to the software...having something to actually *do*
with it, like this node database for HECnet, is great stuff, and a great way
to learn.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 2013-05-18 18:45, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-05-18 18:35, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 05/18/2013 12:04 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Is there a way we can get write access to the db? That way we can
keep our
own info up to date.
I was thinking about it. Pros and cons. Easier for updating. Potentially
anyone erasing the whole thing. The granularity of permissions is by the
whole table.
It would perhaps be possible to do something that everyone had their own
table, and then I'd just pull data from all of them for various
tasks. But
then I'd have potential name collision issues and what not...
Actually, thinking a bit more, I could probably do some web interface
with
people having their own passwords and the ability to update just
their data
that way. Needs some thinking perhaps, but maybe the most doable.
Anyone else have some ideas on how to do it?
I like the idea of giving us all write access. Maybe you can set up
regular dumps of the database for restoration in case someone screws up.
I can certainly do that. It just becomes a question of people might need
to reenter information in case a rollback has to go far. Also trickier
to realize if "corruption" actually have happened perhaps.
On the other hand, I could atleast have permissions that only allowed
random people to modify data, not add new, nor delete.
One thing I always like to have is some kind of uniformity. That is always harder to get with many people entering data. But I guess that can be addressed by having some explicit guidelines.
Right now, the uniformity (as far as it goes) comes from just my head.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On Sat, 18 May 2013, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 05/18/2013 12:04 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Is there a way we can get write access to the db? That way we can keep our
own info up to date.
I was thinking about it. Pros and cons. Easier for updating. Potentially
anyone erasing the whole thing. The granularity of permissions is by the
whole table.
It would perhaps be possible to do something that everyone had their own
table, and then I'd just pull data from all of them for various tasks. But
then I'd have potential name collision issues and what not...
Actually, thinking a bit more, I could probably do some web interface with
people having their own passwords and the ability to update just their data
that way. Needs some thinking perhaps, but maybe the most doable.
Anyone else have some ideas on how to do it?
I like the idea of giving us all write access. Maybe you can set up
regular dumps of the database for restoration in case someone screws up.
It would give some of us a chance to learn Datatrieve in a real-world
scenario. I myself have never worked with it and would like to learn it; I
learn best by doing.
I wouldn't mind learning Datatrieve either...I bet it'd beat MySQL for sure!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments
On Sat, 18 May 2013, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-05-18 15:00, Brian Hechinger wrote:
Is there a way we can get write access to the db? That way we can keep our own info up to date.
I was thinking about it. Pros and cons. Easier for updating. Potentially
anyone erasing the whole thing. The granularity of permissions is by the
whole table.
It would perhaps be possible to do something that everyone had their own
table, and then I'd just pull data from all of them for various tasks.
But then I'd have potential name collision issues and what not...
Actually, thinking a bit more, I could probably do some web interface
with people having their own passwords and the ability to update just
their data that way. Needs some thinking perhaps, but maybe the most doable.
Anyone else have some ideas on how to do it?
You could do separate mini-dbs for each area that each person can modify.
Johnny
-brian
On May 17, 2013, at 12:03, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2013-05-17 16:18, Bob Armstrong wrote:
On 2013-05-16 18:28, Johnny Billquist wrote:
This is a totally volontary thing. I've finally come to the point
where I think that there are a few more pieces of data on nodes
that would be nice/useful to have from time to time.
Much of the information you want (all of it, I think) is already in the
INFO.TXT file -
$ type legato""::info.txt
....
ADDR |NAME |OWNER |EMAIL |HARDWARE |OS
|LOCATION |NOTES
2.1 |LEGATO|Bob Armstrong |bob at jfcl.com |simh |OpenVMS
7.3|Milpitas, CA, US|DCN Multinet Ro
uter
2.2 |POCO | | |MicroVAX-2000 |
| |6MB, RD54, TK50
2.4 |MEZZO | | |PDP-11/53 |RSTS
| |3.5MB, 2xRA73,TK70, SCSI
2.6 |LARGO | | |VAX-11/730 |VMS 4.7
| |R80, 2xRA81, RL02, RX02, TU80
2.7 |CODA | | |DS20E |OpenVMS
8.3| |
2.9 |DIVISI| | |VAX-8350 |VMS 5.5-2
| |16MB, RA81, RA82, TU81+
2.10 |ADAGIO| | |VAXserver 3900 |VMS 6.0
| |RA81, RX50, 2xRD54, Kennedy 9610, RRD50, RF31, 2xRF71,
RF72, SQ703, Exabyte 8505
2.11 |LENTO | | |PDP-11/73 |RSX-11M+
| |2xRD32, RX50, RL02, Kennedy 9600
2.12 |JENSEN| | |DEC 2000 axp |OpenVMS
7.3| |
2.13 |ZITI | | |eBox-3310 |Ubuntu
| |
2.14 |MULTIA| | |Multia UDB |OpenVMS
7.3| |
2.15 |PAVANE| | |DECstation 3100 |Ultrix
| |MIPS box w/DECnet-Ultrix
2.16 |SKETTI| | |HP ProLiant ML110G4 |Ubuntu
| |
2.18 |DSRVB1| | |DECserver-200/MC |
| |
2.19 |DSRVB2| | |DECserver-200/MC |
| |
FWIW, keeping a central database up to date is going to be a nightmare -
that's why we invented the INFO.TXT files; so each sysadmin could locally
update his own information.
Yes. I know... :-)
Which I said this is all voluntary and so on. I've just felt that the INFO.TXT is not really working that well either. At least not from my point of view. I'm willing to try different things. I could consider some automatic scraping and population of the nodename database from some distributed sources as well, if we can come up with something that seems reasonable.
Oh, and thanks.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments