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

On 6/21/05, Knezevic, Mihael <m.knezevic@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----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
> 

The thing I always felt held it back for serious enterprise use was
that it did not implement the concept of atomicity.  Although I
believe the most recent version does that.