AW: Java vs .NET was: RPGIII compiler vs Visual Basic

 

> -----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