Slashdot Mirror

Reminds me of SCO's spin on a VARBusiness article back in October. Here's SCO's version. Now check out the original article. SCO did indeed rate in the top four. Out of five.

MS SQL Server 200 is OK. However, it cannot touch Oracle as a large enterprise DB. Oracle's clustering/grid computing is very very good stuff. MS SQL Server just doesn't have it. The fortune 500 I am a senior programmer at uses Oracle ONLY for critical data and it has never let us down. We do have a bunch of MS SQL server boxes up to quad 3.06GHz Xeons with HT, SCSI, etc and they are not bad. Though our DBA's would never stick our critical data in them. They are departmental servers only. We have had issues with MS SQL Server 2000 and memory leaks where the DB had to be brought down to clean up memory. Tons of "transaction logs full" problems even though DTS packages do nightly backups of the DB and transaction logs which should clear them out. It is funny because the transaction logs will be fine for a few weeks and then, wham, they just start to get full and the DTS packages fail. MS SQL Server just flakes and needs to be restarted, or sometimes an OS reboot, then the issue is totally gone for a few more weeks, and it comes back. Oracle may take a little more knowlege to setup, however, once you have that core Oracle skill set, Oracle DB will never let you down. We run Oracle on Linux and Solaris and Oracle just won't die. MS SQL Server also just lost its price advantage over Oracle. Another problem with MS SQL Server 2000 is that it only has failover clustering. In fact MS's next version of SQL Server won't have any better clustering support either. One of the main benefits of clustering is cost/performance. I will agree that SQL Server is acceptable for departmental, however it is not there yet for the enterprise needs for the company I work at, and it sounds as if the next version will not be ready either.

Do use SANS/NAS for your load balanced DB?

I wonder what color the sky is in Darl's world.

My tinfoil hat may be on too tight, however:

1. Microsoft Loses Antitrust case.
2. Bush gets into the Whitehouse and expected results of antitrust case become very wattered down.
3. Microsoft employee becomes chief of cyber security for the government - authors 'National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace'.
4. Google is known to have former NSA people on the payroll.
5. Microsoft's 'trusted computing' strategy includes building an all in one DRM gateway.
6. Microsoft goes after Google...

It seems to me that Microsoft is tightening their ties with government in an attempt to influence the upcoming DRM war. What better way to do that than to have an inside man to set internet security policy, to control all access of electronic resources into the home, and to control the most important search portal. There are probably other evidence to support this view - but I don't have the time to 'google' it all for you (kind of ironic, if it wasn't so scary in a 'big brother is watching you' sort of way...)

To paraphrase Frank Herbert, "he who controls the access, controls the universe"

thanks. that was a good article.
Here is the link actual

if anyone has any mod points spare they might want to use them on the parent

One interesting result was that the fastest growing certifications were Linux Professional Institute Certified (LPIC) Level 1 and the Red Hat Certified Engineer (RHCE).