Sun Invests, IBM Invests, MS ??

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor

    SSC Guru

    Points: 721381

    Comments posted to this topic are about the item Sun Invests, IBM Invests, MS ??

  • Alan Vogan

    SSCrazy

    Points: 2483

    LOL! My wife wouldn't let me move to Seattle either!

    :w00t:

  • Roddy.CAMERON

    SSCommitted

    Points: 1550

    One missing point on the acquisition front. Microsoft did not actually design and build SQLServer, Sybase did. MS "acquired" it in a round about sort of a way. True, they never purchased Sybase so there was no company acquisition, but the product was pure Sybase up until the time the partnership ended around '94 and MS conveniently owned the appropriate license for developing it on Windows. Ever thought why there is not a Unix/Linux version of it - they don't own the licence to write the code on any platform other than Windows. This acquisition seems to be missing from the list!! Do MS have any software that they actually thought of, designed and built all by themselves??

    Although I make these points as a die hard Sybase dba, I actually think SQLServer is a very good products, certainly deserving of second place 😀

  • Vivien Xing

    SSChampion

    Points: 12297

    I was thinking to suggestion a question to Steve. How many SQL instances/databases a DBA supports in average? I found this question is on today’s vote already. So next question could be how many Oracle instances an Oracle DBA support? How about Sybase, MySQL or DB2. I see the number for SQL is at the high end, Sybase as well. Wondering how the other people think and feel.

    The numbers show the cost from certain point of view.

  • RBarryYoung

    SSC Guru

    Points: 143327

    FYI: It is my understanding that as of SQL Server 2005, there is no longer any original SyBase code in SQL Server and that the licensing restrictions no longer apply.

    [font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
    Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc.
    [/font]
    [font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]

  • Roddy.CAMERON

    SSCommitted

    Points: 1550

    I have to be honest and say I was not aware exactly how the restrictions have changed over the years, and I'm sure you're quite right on this. At least on that basis we can look forward to a version that runs on a real operating system 🙂

    Seriously though, it's actually a shame that the partnership no longer exists in some ways, and that MS are so hostile towards Sybase. Microsoft and Sybase together would have sown up the database market covering all platforms as they were doing before it all went pear shaped. The underlying design of the 2 products is the best on the market in my opinion, even if they have both now taken their own differing routes. Clearly MS could still take the market lead even with a single platform product, but think what they would do if they covered all the unix systems as well, particularly in the global coporate markets where Windows is less popular as an OS for db servers.

  • jezemine

    SSCrazy Eights

    Points: 8059

    ms would never port sql server to unix or any other os.

    sql server drives adoption of the windows server platform, just as halo drives adoption of the xbox.

    ---------------------------------------
    elsasoft.org

  • Roddy.CAMERON

    SSCommitted

    Points: 1550

    I think you miss my point. I'm not suggesting that MS should or will consider a unix port. I'm making the point about what may have been had MS & Sybase maintained their partnership which offered both a Windows & Unix based product. Combined together as they were, they would almost certainly have had an even greater share of todays market. MS may be very single minded about Windows, but the rest of the world is not. There is a huge market out there who will not use Windows as a host platform for servers, and MS chose to turn their back on that market. For a company so obviously focused on their own success, that is a strange business decision to have made.

  • Matt Miller (4)

    SSC Guru

    Points: 124208

    It is a shame that they're all centralized up in Redmond. I can kind of understand why, but still - it seems like it could use having multiple dev teams, or decentralized. I mean - what's TFS for if you can't decentralize (hehe - couldn't help the dig)....

    Besides - there's such a lovely Microsoft office right down the street from here....

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?

  • Peter Shire

    SSC-Addicted

    Points: 457

    Steve,

    Encouraging the community to contribute and help improve SQL Server is great for everyone. I think the community is one of reasons the product continues to grow so dynamically. Allow me to highlight another area that has tremendous potential to improve SQL Server and the workload borne by SQL Server professionals; third party software. The tools and applications created by independent software vendors are helping to bring innovation, efficiency and more to SQL Server DBAs and Developers around the world. The “roll up your sleeves” attitude that has helped build the SQL Server community is now facing the challenge of ever increasing workload. I would like to encourage the community to take a moment and check for third party software to tackle some of those daily chores they face with SQL Server. Sure, there is a pride of ownership in crafting your own solutions to a problem. Remember to ask yourself “is this an efficient use of my time” or could I be focusing on more strategic work and grow my skills.

    Thanks,

    Peter Shire

    SQL Sentry, Inc.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply