Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 13:19:16 -0700
Message-ID: <1084738758.968551@yasure>

Howard J. Rogers wrote:

> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>

>> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>>
>>>> That may be true of 'your' customers. But not one of mine would find
>>>> that acceptable.
>>>
>>> Daniel. Before you type, why don't you read? And why don't you just 
>>> stop to pause a little and think who comes to this group?
>>
>> I've thought about it. What conclusion would you like me to reach?

>
> That the people who come here are a wide and varied bunch, and the fact
> that *your* customers need to run 24x7x365 is not sufficient
> justification for rubbishing the O/S and database they have decided to use.

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.

>> are interested in multiple opinions ... and in
>> the end make up their own minds based on their situation.

>
> Rubbishing one of the most common O/Ses, and one of the top three
> RDBMSs, does not constitute an 'opinion'. It is, however, something you
> do a lot of. Not on any technical basis, because that might be a
> discussion worth having, but because "my customers wouldn't find that
> acceptable".

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.

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.

>> There are times when Windows
>> is the appropriate solution. But that said ... one makes that decision
>> based on understanding the reality of the impact it will have on every
>> aspect of the database and its operations.
>>
>> The thread I was responding two, if you review it, will clearly show
>> that the first posting related to a list that seemed to sum up
>> decision making as based on performance and extras. I pointed out
>> that there were more important considerations such as security,
>> stability, and scalability.

>
> No, Daniel. That is called "re-writing history". You didn't make
> reasoned comments about those three things, but said Windows was
> insecure, needed patches all the time and so on.

Are you going to accuse Microsoft this same blasphemy?

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.aspx?DisplayLang=en&ExpandTopList=true

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.

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

> 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?

> No, not a single sentence. An attitude that speaks volumes.

By all means tell me what my attitude is. I really want to know?

> 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.

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

> HJR

-- 
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)

Received on Sun May 16 2004 - 15:19:16 CDT