5Re: [gensoft] Re: This should prove interesting....
- Feb 9, 2006On Thursday 09 February 2006 09:27, Paul Blair wrote:
>--- In email@example.com, "pfablair" <pblair30@...> wrote:Apology accepted ;-)
> > As one of those people who define present commercial genealogy
> > software program as LCD (think back to your maths classes!), I
> > welcome a chance to debate fresh ideas about what we might like...
> Sorry Leif (and others) - I need to be more careful. Point taken.
> Lowest Common Denominator was what I should have typed...
> Paul - who promises to do better!
Now that I know what you're talking about, I tend to agree. Although the
worst LCD(?) factor here appears to be the GEDCOM format. Any program
with a data model that deviates too much from the GEDCOM legacy model
(note that I'm writing "legacy" with a small l) will have major trouble
with regards to data interchange.
During the nine years that I have been occupied with genealogy, software
development have been utterly transformed by the open-source model. You
can download a totally awesome relational database engine like
PostgreSQL for free and write your own genealogy app around it in any
of several freely available scripting languages. Back in 1997, that
wasn't an option. Besides, a 90 MHz Pentium with a few megabytes of RAM
would hardly have been up to the task anyway.
About the only thing in IT that hasn't changed since then is the GEDCOM
standard. That is still at version 5.5. And even if a better standard
was around, I seriously doubt if the commercial genealogy software
developers would give it any significant mindshare. With one honorable
exception, the commercial program developers are very very concerned
that their customers might leave them if some method of lossless data
So, in the year 2006 we are dragging behind us the body of an
interchange standard that's been effectively dead for the last ten
years. And that's your LCD number one.
Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009
http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>