Re: Crossing over from SQL Server

On Jun 13, 8:36 am, Mark D Powell <Mark.Pow..._at_eds.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 11:10 pm, euan.gar..._at_gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >SQL Server
> > > -----------------
> > > Well we all know how this came about don't we so need to dredge up the dirt.
>
> > You know Daniel you continue to disapoint. The fact that you are
> > teaching cross-over courses and yet still peddling this stuff is
> > tragic. We've had this many times, yes a version of Sybase was based
> > on the Ingres project and a version(actually set of versions) ofSQL> Serverwas based on Sybase but I once again refer you to this entry
> > which explains the re-architecture work done starting with SQL 7 that
> > makes this linking of yours beyond even tenous.
>
> >http://blogs.msdn.com/euanga/archive/2006/01/19/514479.aspx
>
> > Of course the tragic part in this particular thread is that original
> > poster received very sound advice from everyone here, including you,
> > without flaming/stupidity, right up to this whole history part of the
> > thread.
>
> > -Euan
> > (Apologies if this is a double post I'm having weird timout issues)
>
> I do not see how the MS rewrite for version 7 changes the history
> Daniel provided nor does it change the fact thatSQL Server2000 and
> Sybase still shared a hundred same named stored procedures for
> performing the same function within the database at the timeSQLServer2000 was released.
>
> IsSQL Server2000/2005/2008 Sybase, no.  But the two products do
> share some history.  As more time goes by more divergence is taking
> place but history is still history.
>
> -- Mark D Powell --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fair point but here is the challenge with Daniel is saying. His data is spot on AND relevant to all SQL Server versions up to and including 6.5. However as I say in the entry Sybase as a history is just not relevant once you get to 7.0 for anything other than passing history. Whats much more relevant is the input into the design and implementation done by Jim, Gray, Peter Spiro, James Hamilton, Hal Berenson, David Campbell et al.

If you were in the class or even in this newsgroup and wanted to be informed would you want the history thats relevant to the version you can buy today or the history thats relevant to the version that you have not been able to buy for 9 1/2 years?

For me I want both, but I want the ancient history qualified and not represented as the only history.

The reality is we should probably question Daniel's Sybase info as I believe they have gone through at least one re-architecture that warrants a mention but I don't know how far that diverged from the Ingres history hence can't comment.

The 100 SPs thing is irrelavant as far as this thread is concerned, SQL Server and Oracle both support Select, Insert, Update, Delete what does that say?

So in short I think the right way to present this info would be to leave the Sybase reference in but qualify it as most relevant to 6.5 and earlier and to point out things changed with 7 and beyond.

-Euan Received on Fri Jun 13 2008 - 12:19:14 CDT