Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

Howard J. Rogers wrote:

> 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?

I don't recall ever disagreeing with what you just said. If you think I did it was a misunderstanding. Keep in mind ... I use Windows daily. So do many of my smaller customers. I can't imagine what leap took you to the conclusions you did.

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

I didn't enroll in that school and am totally perplexed by how you came to the erroneous conclusion I did.

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

I don't recall ever doing that and can't imagine how you came to the conclusion I did.

> I've told you before, but there's no adrenaline pumping here.

Then please explain the 'effing' and other angst filled comments? But not here ... these people have probably had their fill of this thread already. You have my email address ... lets take it off-line if it is even worthy of that.

> 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".

A acknowledge to you, and to the entire universe that there is a place where Windows and SQL Server are appropriate solutions to business problems. Ok. Happy? I don't recall ever saying anything else. Taking something into consideration does not mean automatic rejection.

> 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).

Then why didn't you just say it? And we could have ended this thread days ago.

> 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.

Taking a weakness into consideration is not rubbishing. I can't recall driving my car to the store without taking into consideration its weaknesses.

  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'.

And there is a difference between your use of "enough" and my statement that these things need to be considered? I thought we spoke the same language: Apparently not.

> 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
All DBAs that don't agree with you on each and every point you have raised, raise, or will raise at some indeterminate point in the future are flaming morons. Does that make you feel better?

Last time I checked ... everything ever posted to the usenet was written as a personal opinion by its author and interpreted as personal opinion by its readers. When did that change?

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)