Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<40a6ab3f$0$31675$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
> > Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> >
> >>> 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. Any
> >>> time you database server is at risk from every 16 year old on the
> >>> planet. It can't really be called secure or stable.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh, I dunno. Stick it behind a firewall with some AV software and at
> >> least keep it (OS and AV) minimally up to date, and it will do quite
> >> reasonable service, and the script kiddies can be largely forgotten
> >> about.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> HJR
> >
> >
> > And would you then ignore all of the security patches?
> >
> > If you don't ... you still need to at least once a month, likely more
> > often, down your production database to apply them and reboot the
> > server.
>
>
> True enough. But not every patch needs to be applied to every server
> (one can get more intelligent about these things that the CYA Microsoft
> advisories suggest).
>
> But even so. It takes me about 48 seconds to shutdown and re-start my
> Windows 2000 Advanced server. I think I can live with 48 seconds of
> downtime a month. I think *most* people could live with that sort of
> downtime a month, actually. The number of people who truly, absolutely,
> must have no compromises 5 9's uptime are actually quite small, if you
> look at the planet as a whole.

But no one cares about who truly needs it. Perception trumps here.

>
> > For what possible benefit? I'm still looking for one thing Windows
> > can do that, for example, Linux can't do ... except perhaps steal
> > cycles from the CPU.
>
> Well, that's a change in the terms of the debate. My issue is with
> anyone calling Windows 'not an operating system', because it evidently
> is. I didn't say it does one thing that Linux can't do. Nor vice versa.
>
> Just accept the fact that a large number of servers around the world are
> running Windows, whether you like it or not, and they somehow manage to
> achieve productive work by doing so. A good DBA will therefore accept
> Windows as just one more tool to be understood and used appropriately,
> and not expend serious effort trying to slag it off.

I think a good DBA would consider that unnecessary problems that reduce productivity and seriously add to workload in an enviroment of insufficient IT resources are something to be avoided. "Appropriately" indeed.

In the past, you could make your argument, because of the cost differential between Windows and Everything Else. But with linux mainstream and GUI, you now have to compare the differentials on the same hardware with the same talent pool and low transition costs, and it loses.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.ucolick.org/~jhhowell/games/whiteisle/dndhumor.txt