[dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux

Tue Aug 22 09:31:52 CDT 2017

I have heard that MS SQL on Linux is going to be a game changer. What do you think?

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "garykjos" <garykjos at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 7:22:56 AM
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux

Hi Alan,

Well there is Oracle the database management system and there is
Oracle Applications the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system.
They are different things although if you use Oracle ERP you probably
run it on an Oracle Database.

The company I work for uses Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle Database
AND Oracle Applications ERP system software.  We have been migrating
parts of the business to different software though too lessening our
Oracle Applications footprint but we still use the core financials.
We use SQL Server for our website data and for some analytical stuff.
We recently have started using the Microsoft Azure database which is
kind of like a cloud based version of SQL Server.  We use different
platforms for different things.  We do new development on all of them,
to the best of my knowledge none of them are ever going to replace the
other for us.  Oh and we use Access here too.   Usually not so much
for data storage but as a query tool to get information selected and
displayed out of one or more of the main databases.

GK

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM,  <aclawhon at hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>

-- 
Gary Kjos
garykjos at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com