[dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux

Tue Aug 22 06:12:48 CDT 2017

Jim, Rocky, John, et al:

I spent some time seriously studying Microsoft SQL Server several  
years ago.  (At one point I had thoughts of trying to get certified in  
SQL Server.)  When it comes to Oracle, (which I never used and was  
never exposed to), I've always had the impression that Oracle is much  
more than a relational database.  It appears that Oracle is an  
integrated multi-function (multi-capability) software environment  
designed to run and manage large business (and Government) enterprises  
- like, say,  multinational Fortune 500 corporations.  Developing  
Oracle expertise means you don't just become a SQL guru ... you have  
to pretty much be an MBA with a fair amount of education and knowledge  
of finance, accounting, HR - and all the other "business intelligence"  
functions that are integral to the daily operation of large companies.  
  Since so few people have that kind of knowledge and understanding,  
(in addition to software development skills), that's why competent  
Oracle developers command huge salaries.  (I still remember talking  
with an Oracle expert on a flight back from D.C. in the mid-1990's  
when I was working for a defense contractor.  I told him I was an  
"Access developer" making around $32K.  (That was the most money I  
ever made - to that point - in a "professional" job, so I thought I  
was doing very well.)  This fellow didn't scoff or attempt to put  
Access down by referring to it as a "baby" database, but he did  
immediately recommended that I start studying Oracle.  I asked him how  
much money Oracle experts command?  He told me he was pulling down  
$120K annually as a consultant - which astounded me.  (This was circa  
1995.)  Highly skilled and experienced Oracle experts probably make  
(at least) 50 percent more nowadays.

I suppose anybody can learn how to write fairly simple SQL queries in  
just about any relational database management system.  That is only a  
small part of becoming truly valuable as a database expert.  You have  
to learn and understand all the other "business stuff" too.  You have  
to know how to talk to CEOs and CFOs.  It's the same in engineering.   
There are a lot of electrical, chemical, mechanical and aerospace  
engineers.  There are a lot of "software" engineers.  There aren't  
that many engineers with expertise in both engineering and software  
development.  It takes a lot of time, study and preparation to develop  
those skills.  I suppose that explains why there aren't that many  
Oracle experts - and why the few who are command such high compensation.

I don't know what all this has to do with the [relative] popularity of  
all the competing RDBM systems, but I thought I would throw in my  
$0.02 worth.

Former Access Developer Alan of Huntsville

Quoting Jim Lawrence <accessd at shaw.ca>:

> You will not find me disagreeing with you.
>
> It is the way the many surveys rate and define MS SQL. MS SQL is the  
> greatest relational database but in its own category...
>
> ...But from what I have been told, from local leading edge computer  
> developers, the ratings given MSSQL just doesn't seem to match their  
> usage. Example: there are somewhere between 5 and 15K development  
> companies in the Vancouver area and I have been told that none of  
> them use MS SQL? None of them use MS OS for that matter. I would  
> like to know the truth. Maybe, this is but a little back-eddy  
> district...a small little echo chamber that does not represent the  
> new era business model?
>
> https://db-engines.com/en/blog_post/54
> https://db-engines.com/en/ranking_definition
> http://bit.ly/2x7IwaO
>
> Aside: I have that same argument with those that tote Adobe products  
> as the definitive example of graphic applications. When it comes to  
> business graphically applications, Adobe products are looked upon as  
> desktop apps. The main players and products in the world of  
> graphics, like digital mapping, engineering designs, data mapping  
> and animations exist on a whole different vertical. Most of us never  
> see the other programs.
>
> For me, Adobe and MS SQL are just fine but I have already paid for  
> those licences. For any new projects though, I would tend to use  
> what is inexpensive and well supported.
>
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"  
> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 3:30:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>
> LOL, no, they certainly do not match the quantity of data just in
> Google, never mind facebook etc.  But those are different applications
> and SQL Server has to this point never tried to deal with that kind of
> disparate data.  And they may never do so. Relational is just different
> from "big data".
>
>
> On 8/20/2017 3:38 PM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
>> Thanks for the links...great reading. MS SQL is definitely in a  
>> dominant position in the database market. I personally have two MS  
>> SQL DBs, more for fun than business.
>>
>> Aside: I do not know whether I should trust the Gartner reports as  
>> the company is owned by MS. ;-)
>>
>> I think, even given the number of MS SQL DBs installed, MS SQL does  
>> not collectively match the data volume of the super database stores  
>> like, AWS, Facebook, Google, the NSA, IBM etc...
>>
>> This is a slightly dated overview of Google.
>> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/08/01/report-google-uses-about-900000-servers/
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"  
>> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 8:40:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>
>> https://www.computerprofile.com/analytics-papers/microsoft-sql-server-popular-dbms-system/
>>
>> http://blog.rdx.com/rdx-2017-top-database-trends-sql-server-on-linux/
>>
>> http://www.vir.com.vn/gartner-positions-microsoft-as-number-1-in-2016-magic-quadrant.html
>>
>> https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-sql-server-another-surprise-hit-microsoft-2016/
>>
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2017/05/30/mongodb-taking-share-from-oracle-in-40-billion-market/#49c976333156
>>
>>
>> On 8/20/2017 12:03 AM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
>>> An interesting paradox exists between the type of databases being  
>>> used and the amount of data being processed.
>>>
>>> MS SQL is the most popular medium relational DB (35%?) used, but  
>>> MS SQL only processes a tiny fraction of the data of all networks  
>>> and the Internet.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
>>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server"  
>>> <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:30:24 PM
>>> Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>>
>>> I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given that:
>>>
>>> a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither
>>> Windows nor SQL Server;
>>> b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.),
>>> virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years; not
>>> only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB or
>>> PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
>>> c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the aforementioned
>>> competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to
>>> bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an annual
>>> basis).
>>>
>>> What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
>>> there:
>>>
>>> a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to
>>> rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles and
>>> costs;
>>>
>>> b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people keep
>>> touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential porting
>>> opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.
>>>
>>> After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture here.
>>> If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Arthur
>
> --
> John W. Colby
>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com