|
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Ryan > Gesendet: Montag, 20. Juni 2005 19:46 > An: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion > Betreff: Re: Java vs .NET was: RPGIII compiler vs Visual Basic > > On 6/20/05, Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Walden H. Leverich > > > > > > Because it's the flavor of the month. This is perhaps the > one major > > > difference between the java world and the .NET world. In > .NET we have > > > one centralized standards-setting, direction-setting > behemoth, it's > > > called Microsoft. > > > > And the direction changes completely every four or five years. > > > > > > > You can see that in the iSeries world too. As great as > the machine may > > > be you have to admit, it's an extremely small > install-base relative to > > > Windows, good-bad-indifferent, you can't argue the numbers. > > > > What numbers would this be? Maybe desktops, but not business > > application servers. Where are you getting your numbers about the > > number of companies running their business on SQL Server? > File servers > > maybe, or email. > > > > IBM leads the database server market, largely due to DB2 on > the iSeries. > > Oracle is a close second, and is continuing to make inroads > in Windows > > while at the same time moving people to Linux rather than Windows. > > Microsoft is third, with slowing growth. > > > > And even these numbers are skewed because a larger company > may have its > > primary database on the iSeries with ancillary data of some > kind on a > > SQL Server box, and that shows up as a win for both, > whereas a Mom and > > Pop shop running SQL Server for 10 employees is unlikely to have an > > ancillary iSeries. My guess is that a study showing the > percentage of > > mission critical data stored on each server would show DB2 and > > especially DB2/400 with an even bigger lead. > > > > Not only that, but open source and low cost databases like > MySQL will be > > replacing SQL Server at the low end. > > OMG! ROTFL With the advent of that latest and greatest, subselects > and stored procedures MySQL leaps to where any widely used > commercially available relational database has been for years. > perhaps. perhaps not. but you should not look at the features of the database but for the requirements of its usage and at its costs. and one thing i do know is that we use here multiple MS SQL Servers and that those could be easily replaced with MySql servers without loosing any performance. what i want to say is that most people who are using an MS SQL Server never needed anything like it and could very well go with a MySql server. the reason it ain't that way is mostly political. my 2 cents. mk
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.