Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

Daniel Morgan wrote:

[snip]

> I hardly "rubbished" an operating system. I stated that it had a
> weakness. Would you claim otherwise? If you can find an operating system
> that doesn't contain a weakness please inform us all.

Quote:

If it isn't secure who cares how fast it is?
If it isn't stable who cares how many features it has?
If it won't scale to the number of users who gives a rip about extras?

And, to be quite blunt, if the only operating system it will run on is Windows that becomes a limitation affecting all of the above. Unquote

In 5 lines, you've said Windows isn't secure, stable or scalable. I call that "rubbishing".

[snip]

> You think it is an 'opinion' that major corporations reported spending
> billions last year downing servers and cleaning up after a variety of
> worms? You think all of the down time suffered by US banks and other
> financial institutions is an opinion? That hospitals have had pharmacy
> systems stop functioning while trying to get meds to patients an
> opinion?
>
> Give me a break Howard. It is not an opinion ... it is documented
> non-disputable fact.

Once again, you've missed (ie, changed) the point. I haven't commented at all on the above, or suggested anything about it. What I have said is that your one-liner response to me that "my customers wouldn't find that acceptable" is not sufficient as a basis for rubbishing an entire platform. And that you might broaden your horizons a little and realise that many, many businesses and organisations find what you find so easy to diss a perfectly acceptable platform on which to run rather important business-critical databases and related functions.

> Maybe you have some version of Windows down there in Australia that
> doesn't require patching? Or maybe there are no viruses or worms
> that infect systems south of the equator? Or maybe you think that
> the only companies using Microsoft products are such light-weights
> that they don't care if their systems come down regularly. But among
> my clients last year was the largest toy company on the planet. Their
> Oracle system was, and still is, on Win2K. And they are not exactly
> happy with the number of sales they lost due to down-time related to
> the operating system ... not the database.

Then they should consider changing their operating system, clearly. And that's a decision that would seem to be based upon business needs versus technical realities. But for every Daniel that is dealing with Boeing, Amazon and the biggest toy company on the planet, there will be thousands of other DBAs who are not, and where the needs v realities assessment will suggest other outcomes. And (here's the real point) when you post, you might attempt to give some room for them and their decision-making processes, and not seek or seem to dismiss them as being ill-informed or badly done.

[snip]

> I count 17 security patches that you apparently choose to ignore because
> you are behind a firewall: Fine! Some of us have had experiences that
> demonstrate that your strategy is not fool-proof. And far from it have
> experienced very expensive outages.

It isn't my strategy, and I didn't say I would ignore them. I said that there can be a bit more intelligence applied to the business of installing them than you appear to give credit to. And that, for me, and for many of my customers, and for most customers around the world, I suspect, a minute or so of downtime a month as a consequence of NOT ignoring them would be acceptable.

That's all. I'm not in Microsoft's corner. I'm not making claims for the O/S which you seem to think I'm making. I personally wouldn't install Oracle, for example, onto anything other than Linux or Unix if I had a choice in the matter, though that has more to do with memory management than anything else. But I wouldn't dismiss an entire operating system in 5 lines of thoughtlessness, either.

 >> Rather than graciously accept that a reasoned business decision might >> actually favour Windows and SQL Server from time to time, you simply >> announced "well, that wouldn't suit my customers".
> Are you serious?

Your post is on the record. It started with the line "That may be true of 'your' customers. But not one of mine would find that acceptable." Even though now, apparently, one of them does, somehow.

So yes, I am serious.

>I use Windows.

Of course you do. Most people do, you know.

> I have customers that use Windows. But
> we go into it understanding that it is a limitation.

Case closed.

>If you have a list
> of specifications under which you think SQL Server on Windows is a
> better choice than Sybase or Informix on Linux by all means put it
> forward. Just please address the points I originally raised ...
> security, stability, and scalability ... not extras.

I did address them. But apparently "not one of [your] customers would find it acceptable" to do likewise, so they weren't worthy of further discussion by you.

That is my point.

>> My point was then: so effing what? Or put another way, your
>> experience, with your customers, doesn't (obviously) qualify you to
>> comment on the experience and needs of the vast majority of O/S and
>> RDBMS users on the face of this planet.
>
>
> Nor does yours. So why so much angst over this? You have an opinion. I
> have an opinion. So what? Why so much adrenaline over a matter of so
> little consequence?

Because, Daniel, this isn't a matter of my opinion versus yours, but of a global reality versus your ego, apparently.

Not that, even so, this is a matter of adrenaline on my part at least. Just an attempt to extract a modicum of moderation from you. A smidgen of a realisation that your work history is not perhaps representative. That others, lots of them, might find perfectly reasonable, scalable, secure and stable solutions using technology you simply see as a limitation.

That the Book of Daniel is not necessarily a gospel for our times.

>> No, not a single sentence. An attitude that speaks volumes.
>
>
> By all means tell me what my attitude is. I really want to know?

Please read my posts, then.

>> Why? Do you dislike having to actually justify the sweeping statements
>> you are occasionally prone to making?
>
>
> If you don't like my sweeping statements ... contradict them with facts
> not emotions. Do you wish to dispute the cost to industry for dealing
> with Windows security issues? If so ... have at it.

Nice try. I haven't attempted to dispute anything but your dismissive attitude to one of the most prevalent O/Ses and RDBMSs in use. And you might factor that scale of usage into your calculations of why these security issues cost so much to deal with whilst you're at it.

> Start by going to Google and putting in the following search criterion:
> "Cost of" AND "Windows Security"
>
>> Humility, Daniel, consists in part in understanding that your
>> particular experiences are not necessarily indicative of the
>> experiences of others. You could try it sometime.
>
>
> Have you considered looking into a mirror when making such statements?
> You are criticizing me for exactly, and I do mean EXACTLY, what you are
> doing yourself.

No, Daniel. I am not. Unlike you, I take an open-minded approach to platforms, OSes and RDBMSs, and I wouldn't dismiss one of the most prevalent with a 5-line pay-off, nor then attempt to justify it with a one-line "My customers wouldn't find it acceptable".

I am on record here as 'hating' Linux, because I find it so damn obscure at times. But I use it, regularly, and recommend it to many, because it has clear advantages in certain circumstances. Would that you could be likewise platform-agnostic.

>Have a beer and relax. This is software not the possible
> end of civilization as we know it.

Nice try yet again. The issue is *you*, Daniel. Not software, which most people recognise needs assessing on its case-by-case merits. Nor the end of civilisation, which isn't actually at issue in this thread. Just you, your attitude, and the way you have expressed it in this thread.

The people who write about "M$", "Micro$oft" and "Windoze" are similarly encumbered. It's a silly attitude to have, frankly. More to the point, perhaps, it's unprofessional.

But it is clearly brick-wall-and-head time again.

HJR Received on Sun May 16 2004 - 16:40:12 CDT