Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

Daniel Morgan wrote:

> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>
> And you would say that this statement is untrue?
>
>> If it isn't stable who cares how many features it has?
>
>
> And you would say that this statement is untrue?
>
>> If it won't scale to the number of users who gives a rip about extras?
>
>
> And you would say that this statement is untrue?
>
>> 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.
>
>
> And you would say that this statement is untrue?
>
>> In 5 lines, you've said Windows isn't secure, stable or scalable. I
>> call that "rubbishing".
>
>
> Then by all means establish under what conditions you think it
> appropriate to build line-of-business systems on a platform that is
> not secure, not stable, and not scalable?

That's the whole point, isn't it? Windows *is* secure, stable and scalable *enough* for a lot of people.

It's the "it's not, period" school of thought I find so immensely unprofessional.

> Now if you wish to debate whether a particular O/S is or is not those
> things that is not the point. First establish that they are not
> important criteria. If you can I'll be surprised.

I'd be surprised if, in the course of this dialog, you could actually address points I raise without inventing ludicrous suggestions I would never have raised (and never did).

> If you can't then we can get into the vaugaries of whether a particular
> operating system is or is not more secure, more stable, or more
> scalable, than any other. At which point my preference might well be
> OS/390.

And that's a far more intelligent approach, don't you think, than simply to dismiss.

> I've known you a long time Howard and I'm not buying the amount of
> adrenaline you've pumped into this thread.

I've told you before, but there's no adrenaline pumping here. All I ask is that you back off a little and acknowledge the facts of the world as they actually are, where hundreds of thousands of databases run on SQL Server, on Windows (obviously), and their owners and users don't find that an appalling state of affairs. Or, in your words, a "limitation".

They may not be "your" customers. But they still count.

> I've seen a lot of work
> you've done on your website in Linux and not a lot relating to
> Windows.

In fact, most of my papers and examples are done on Windows first, with a Linux differential if needed. There's a lot of linux papers there because I had to write up how in God's name to do battle with that operating system so I wouldn't forget it the next time.

>A lot relating to Oracle and not a lot relating to SQL Server.

Er, that would be because I wouldn't arrogate to myself the right to pass any comment whatsoever about SQL Server, though I use it a lot and know it reasonably well.

> So I'm a bit intrigued ... why this sudden interest in riding like a
> White Knight to defend an O/S and product you seem to have little or no
> other interest in?

I'm not defending anything, Daniel. I have no interest in defending either Windows or SQL Server, because whether I am for them or against them, they'll still be there tomorrow (which has been largely my point throughout). What I am doing is criticising what I consider to be your unprofessionalism or arrogance, call it what you will, in "rubbishing" a platform as you have done in this thread. I am hoping for a glimpse of humility or reason along the lines of 'Windows/SQL Server is a platform which many businesses will find secure, stable and scalable enough for their needs'. It might be asking a bit, but I'd also like to see an acknowledgement that 'and DBAs who don't recognise it as such are not exhibiting the rational professionalism which should be their hallmark'.

HJR Received on Mon May 17 2004 - 01:01:34 CDT