Looks promising! May I ask why you forked from the original (https://github.com/JamesFator/GoogleMusicMac)? Looking at the commit history it seems to be under active development.

Thanks! When I initially forked the repository, I hadn't planned on including features like the theme or the notifications, but once I realized how much I liked the product and wanted to continue to develop it, I figured I should ask the original creator for permission to keep the fork independent and he agreed. Very generous of him!

Outside of implementing the notifications this offers nothing for me that the original one, from James Fator, doesn't already do. I dislike the table display and the attempt at making the appearance be more Cocoa-esque in favor of the Google web design. You might also want to think of changing the app name and icon also as it is misleading.

So he's saying MySQL is bad, and MongoDB (because of a statement on their home page) is kind of like MySQL, so MongoDB is also bad. Also there was some article about scaling it to "only" 100GB which means it damages NoSQL as a whole in the "most harmful way".

Sorry but I don't really get the reasoning.

MySQL is an awful implementation of SQL. MongoDB is even more pitiful of an implementation of NoSQL. It's a Fischer price database that had a global write lock until version 2.2. What exactly don't you understand about the analogous nature of two crumby data stores?

So what exactly makes Mongo such a bad implementation (apart from things that were already fixed)?

I don't mean to defend MongoDB, i'm genuinely interested in finding a better NoSQL DB. I just usually get to hear the same "Fisher price" bashing without any real arguments.

The problem you have is that there are different types of NoSQL databases. Key value stores, document stores, graph databases, you name it they have their own specialty.

NoSQL's name shows just how nebulous the concept is. It was first coined by someone who built a relational database but without implementing SQL, then it was later used to describe distributed, non-relational databases that ignored, downgraded or discarded some form of ACID. Now it can be a retronym for "not only SQL".

In this space, work out what your actually needs are, then carefully research the technology and pick whatever is most appropriate.

It still has a global write lock, but now it's only global to the database.

I did not know this. That would be pretty awful for a high traffic service.

It is quite awful. You basically get a graph showing latency as almost directly proportional to number of concurrent requests :(

Not to mention it is not fun to admin.

The reasoning is:

1. MongoDB and MySQL have similar market penetration

2. MongoDB and MySQL both have limitations

(these statements are independent)

Then, from 1 and 2, he concludes 3: In the same way that MySQL gives SQL a bad reputation, MongoDB gives NoSQL a bad reputation.

The problem for MongoDB is that its limitations are far less understood by its users than with MySQL.

Don't worry, most of MySQL and MongoDB bashing is uninformed prejudice coupled with a "holier than thou" attitude.

Its his choice how he wants his works to be distributed. You can still link to it. And if you want to translate it just ask him.

you can link to it as long as the court in question agrees that linking is not publishing or distributing. this is (unfortunately) not the case.