On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 12:45 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote: > [Quoting Adam Kennedy, on June 18 2006, 02:36, in "Re: Its time we set "] > > Johan Vromans wrote: > > > Although SQLite is very nice, I wouldn't call it an industrial > > > strength database system like Oracle or PostgreSQL. Moreover, often > > > the customer requires a particular database and she wil not be happy > > > having to support yet another one. > > > > Then might I suggest if there is a requirement on some arbitrary > > database dependency for one particular case, that has little to no > > relevance at all on having a usable "standard" desktop applications > > environment. > > I'm afraid you missed the point where I said that SQLite is not usable > as a full strenght SQL based RDBMS. It lacks several features that are > really required for anything but trivial DB applications (yes, that's > DB in the meaning of Berkeley DB). > > Despite it's popularity, it took MySQL many years to get at that point. The reason to use SQLite over MySQL/PostgreSQL/whatever is that you can define where the data goes. With a "traditional" SQL server, it is just somewhere "out there". With SQLite, you can define the path, usually from a single app. They are two different tools with two different usages that happen to share parts of a common language.