Posted by
michael
on from the mysql-available-now dept.
Strudelkugel writes "CRN reports SQL Server 'Yukon' will slip to 2005, complicating plans for ISVs and creating opportunities for OSS and other competitors."
Re:Actualy kind of sad
by
bucknuggets
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
well, even though 2000 is a decent product - it still has quite a few obvious enhancements needed (exception handling in stored procs for example).
The direction they're headed with yukon however, is to push more.net stuff into the database. Yuk. I've always avoided their proprietary ado/vb/etc stuff in sql 2000, and.net is just more of the like.
Anyone who takes advantage of any of that stuff is stuck with sql server forever.
Re:Slashdot - MySQL?
by
bonch
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
You think Slashdot is some sort of example of efficiency and speed?
My god, thinking about Slashcode alone makes my eyes bleed. I don't even want to think about their InnoDB setup.
I remember some guy posted about how switching to CSS would save around 20-40% or so of bandwidth. Taco's response? "Submit a patch if you want." So we're stuck with HTML 3.2 because Taco is a lazy ass who doesn't want to fix it himself.
well, even though 2000 is a decent product - it still has quite a few obvious enhancements needed (exception handling in stored procs for example). The direction they're headed with yukon however, is to push more .net stuff into the database. Yuk. I've always avoided their proprietary ado/vb/etc stuff in sql 2000, and .net is just more of the like.
Anyone who takes advantage of any of that stuff is stuck with sql server forever.
You think Slashdot is some sort of example of efficiency and speed?
My god, thinking about Slashcode alone makes my eyes bleed. I don't even want to think about their InnoDB setup.
I remember some guy posted about how switching to CSS would save around 20-40% or so of bandwidth. Taco's response? "Submit a patch if you want." So we're stuck with HTML 3.2 because Taco is a lazy ass who doesn't want to fix it himself.