Question about using free/paid SQL servers.

[zippy]

At university we getting taught SQL using MySql thank goodness. I have learnt so much using command prompt and not click click of Microsoft stuff. But I read there is a shift from MySql to MariaDB.

It doesn't really matter that you are being taught MSSQL, what matters is that you are being taught SQL. That is the skill people pay good money for. At that stage the vendor doesn't matter. If all they are teaching you is how to navigate the menus in the MSSQL tools, then have a problem.
There is always a shift to some previously unknown DB. Yet that article is probably the last you will read about it

The reality is that companies don't change very often. Once or twice. Microsoft and Oracle both have free versions, I.e. Express versions. It's a clever way of locking in potential customers, because while its expensive to upgrade to their commercial products, it's VERY hard to reskill or rehire developers.

Free DBMS gave their limitations, but are perfectly fine for startups.

There may be regulatory reasons why you would be forced to upgrade. For example in the UK you have to have vendor support for your main production systems in order to sell financial services to the public. Also some stock exchange rules might force you to have full licences. But while you aren't under those constraints there is nothing wrong with the cheapest option. But remember that this also applies to dev salaries. The same companies who can't afford full licences for a DBMS, probably also can't afford market rates for IT Devs
I would never even bother applying to work for someone who runs their main production system on Oracle/Microsoft Express or Piet's Freeware DBMS

 

[Skandalis]

I would never even bother applying to work for someone who runs their main production system on Oracle/Microsoft Express or Piet's Freeware DBMS

Amen to that!

 

[|3ash3r]

At university we getting taught SQL using MySql thank goodness. I have learnt so much using command prompt and not click click of Microsoft stuff. But I read there is a shift from MySql to MariaDB.

It doesn't really matter that you are being taught MSSQL, what matters is that you are being taught SQL. That is the skill people pay good money for. At that stage the vendor doesn't matter. If all they are teaching you is how to navigate the menus in the MSSQL tools, then have a problem.

Spikry is using MySQL not MSSQL. :erm:

 

[semaphore]

It doesn't really matter that you are being taught MSSQL, what matters is that you are being taught SQL. That is the skill people pay good money for. At that stage the vendor doesn't matter. If all they are teaching you is how to navigate the menus in the MSSQL tools, then have a problem.
There is always a shift to some previously unknown DB. Yet that article is probably the last you will read about it

The reality is that companies don't change very often. Once or twice. Microsoft and Oracle both have free versions, I.e. Express versions. It's a clever way of locking in potential customers, because while its expensive to upgrade to their commercial products, it's VERY hard to reskill or rehire developers.

Free DBMS gave their limitations, but are perfectly fine for startups.

There may be regulatory reasons why you would be forced to upgrade. For example in the UK you have to have vendor support for your main production systems in order to sell financial services to the public. Also some stock exchange rules might force you to have full licences. But while you aren't under those constraints there is nothing wrong with the cheapest option. But remember that this also applies to dev salaries. The same companies who can't afford full licences for a DBMS, probably also can't afford market rates for IT Devs
I would never even bother applying to work for someone who runs their main production system on Oracle/Microsoft Express or Piet's Freeware DBMS

http://www.postgresql.org/about/users/

Seem like some big names there using postgres.

 

[InvisibleJim]

The same companies who can't afford full licences for a DBMS, probably also can't afford market rates for IT Devs
I would never even bother applying to work for someone who runs their main production system on

Although there are no doubt employers who would agree with this point of view, this doesn't/shouldn't necessarily follow. In many cases, it is about value not affordability. By not paying high licensing costs for proprietary software, the business can (and indeed may need to) invest some of that cost saving into skilled support for the application. There is value in this so long as the total cost is less for the free DB and the free DB solution is fit for purpose.

 

[JerryMungo]

I have to just add that I feel for anyone who has to use commercial license for MS SQL server. The licensing model for 2012 is ridiculous. Ridiculous is a kind word.

Whichever way you look at it, avoid product specific stuff like SPs and the like. As mentioned earlier, make it platform agnostic to make it easier to migrate if you need to.

I would never even bother applying to work for someone who runs their main production system on Oracle/Microsoft Express or Piet's Freeware DBMS

How well do you know MS licensing? What would you recommend a client purchase to get a simple public .Net web app running on an average dual cpu server?

What would YOU recommend for a production system other than MS? I see you turf Oracle out. I can only assume you're referring to MySQL.

 

[zippy]

I have to just add that I feel for anyone who has to use commercial license for MS SQL server. The licensing model for 2012 is ridiculous. Ridiculous is a kind word.

Whichever way you look at it, avoid product specific stuff like SPs and the like. As mentioned earlier, make it platform agnostic to make it easier to migrate if you need to.



How well do you know MS licensing? What would you recommend a client purchase to get a simple public .Net web app running on an average dual cpu server?

What would YOU recommend for a production system other than MS? I see you turf Oracle out. I can only assume you're referring to MySQL.

I don't know enough about MS SQL to either recommend it or warn against it. I have worked with Oracle my entire IT career. The licences are also expensive, but its reliable. Stable and very scalable. The support from Oracle is also pretty good. Can't comment on Microsoft.

I would recommend Oracle to a client, but I will tell them straight I don't know MSSQL.

For me the main advantage of Oracle is that it's certified on more operating systems than MSSQL, and Unix and even enterprise Linux versions are superior to Windows Server.

If a company only had Windows Server I would recommend they go with MSSQL and walk away

I have never come across a site that runs Oracle on MS Windows. Maybe they are out there, but by all accounts it's not the best combo.

However, I doubt I will ever deal with clients who want "simple public .Net" servers. I work with systems which are expected to deal 3000 to 4000 staff initiated transactions daily, and 70 000+ Internet quotation requests a day with 24/7 availability and very strict compliance with both UK and EU financial and insurance regulation.

No way I would want to start working on Joe Public 's little 100meg website selling cabbages

Not that I have anything against small sites. Just not what I do

 

[DominionZA]

You getting offended because of the ease of use of MS Sql ? Lol ok. Dont worry your database is awesome.

No. Not understanding your click click stuff. I work in it daily and still don't understand you. I click to start enterprise manager. Where else

Read your post again. To use what YOU use, you actually have to know what you are doing? Unlike us MS SQL guys? Really?

Not offended. Could care less. Pointing out the tone of your post is all. Carry on.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I have to just add that I feel for anyone who has to use commercial license for MS SQL server. The licensing model for 2012 is ridiculous. Ridiculous is a kind word.

+1. This is true to some degree of all MS Licensing and is one of the reasons why the saying about Free Software "Free as in Free Speech, not Free as in Free Beer" is an important disinction.

How well do you know MS licensing? What would you recommend a client purchase to get a simple public .Net web app running on an average dual cpu server?

I won't give you a recommendation, especially not on the sparse info you have provided. The opinion I will offer, based on research into costings for my own projects is that SQL Server Standard 2012 per core licensing for two 4 core processors will probably set you back in the region of R150k. Server plus CAL licensing is (I think) about R8-10K for the server (standard) and R1.5 -2k per CAL. Note that I'm not an MS Licensing expert and I don't have my previous quotes to hand so I'm going on memory and trying to factor a bit of fat for changes in the exchange rate.

There used to be a SQL Server Web Edition which did not require CALs but I think they have discontinued this in 2012 so I'm not sure how that is supposed to work now. Also, a lot of the changes in 2012 are to do with running in a virtual environment which MS have made into a whole story on it's own.

Unless you absolutely have to run your server on site, you could look at hosting it with a hosting service provider or Amazon or Azure.

What would YOU recommend for a production system other than MS? I see you turf Oracle out. I can only assume you're referring to MySQL.

I think Zippy was referring to the Oracle Express edition rather than MySQL. Well known FLOSS data platforms include MySQL, MariaDB, PostgreSQL, Firebird, SQLite, MongoDB, Derby, CouchDB and more. It's horses for courses (not all of these would be suitable for enterprise apps and a couple aren't SQL.)

I also won't put down SQL Server's capabilities. It just doesn't always represent best value for money (plus you're also locked in to the Windows platform.) Likewise, many of the Free databases are used in numerous demanding applications Worldwide so I don't think it is necessarily correct to label them as inferior.

 

[zippy]

+1. This is true to some degree of all MS Licensing and is one of the reasons why the saying about Free Software "Free as in Free Speech, not Free as in Free Beer" is an important disinction.



I won't give you a recommendation, especially not on the sparse info you have provided. The opinion I will offer, based on research into costings for my own projects is that SQL Server Standard 2012 per core licensing for two 4 core processors will probably set you back in the region of R150k. Server plus CAL licensing is (I think) about R8-10K for the server (standard) and R1.5 -2k per CAL. Note that I'm not an MS Licensing expert and I don't have my previous quotes to hand so I'm going on memory and trying to factor a bit of fat for changes in the exchange rate.

There used to be a SQL Server Web Edition which did not require CALs but I think they have discontinued this in 2012 so I'm not sure how that is supposed to work now. Also, a lot of the changes in 2012 are to do with running in a virtual environment which MS have made into a whole story on it's own.

Unless you absolutely have to run your server on site, you could look at hosting it with a hosting service provider or Amazon or Azure.



I think Zippy was referring to the Oracle Express edition rather than MySQL. Well known FLOSS data platforms include MySQL, MariaDB, PostgreSQL, Firebird, SQLite, MongoDB, Derby, CouchDB and more. It's horses for courses (not all of these would be suitable for enterprise apps and a couple aren't SQL.)

I also won't put down SQL Server's capabilities. It just doesn't always represent best value for money (plus you're also locked in to the Windows platform.) Likewise, many of the Free databases are used in numerous demanding applications Worldwide so I don't think it is necessarily correct to label them as inferior.

Both Oracle and Microsoft offer "express" versions don't they?

 

[InvisibleJim]

Both Oracle and Microsoft offer "express" versions don't they?

They do. I thought from his post that iawtimnbe was not aware of the Oracle Express Edition and thought you were referring to MySQL.

 

[SmartKit]

I think there is value in applications that are database agnostic for a lot of customers (certainly in the small-to-mid sized company space) as well as to you as a developer. Many frameworks like Rails and the PHP frameworks such as CakePHP and Yii incorporate database abstraction and/or an active record technology which make them database agnostic to a degree (I'm not going to go into the relative performance merits of frameworks here or how db agnostic the current ones actually are.)

Offering db agnostic applications gives your customer options - if they own licenses for SQL Server or Oracle or if they feel these are better suited for their requirements, then great, no problem, they can use this. Otherwise, being able to run your application on MySQL, PostgreSQL,Firebird or whatever may make it easier to make a buying decision in favour of your software as they don't incur costs in additional licensing. Also, in the case that the free DB proves insufficient, it adds weight to the argument that investment should be made in a proprietary technology.

I have no problem with the capabilities of SQL server but you do have to pay for that technology. Even relying solely on the free Express version is potentially locking your clients into one vendor which could be a expensive upgrade path for them at some point in the future.

By offering a solution that gives the customer options in which back end to use, you give your customer options and also open up your application to appeal to a wider customer base.

Agree with Firebird. Open source version of a commercial enterprise database. Free and highly scalable. Can also run in Oracle mode (10g).

 

[zippy]

A business doesn't succeed because of its choice of DBMS, or fail because of a particular DBMS.

A business succeeds or fails depending on decisions made by its management. Businesses have failed who run SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, Postgres etc

You can build a successful business on anyone of them. The difference between success and failure is getting mostly the right people with the appropriate skills. That's in your IT, Sales, Production, Purchasing.

I don't work on SQL Server, not because its I think it's inferior, I don't work on SQL Server because my skills aren't as good as my skills in Oracle, and as a result i get paid better. The same for the other DBMS.

This "my DBMS is better than your DBMS" says more about how insecure some devs are

 

[stoymigo]

A business doesn't succeed because of its choice of DBMS, or fail because of a particular DBMS.

A business succeeds or fails depending on decisions made by its management. Businesses have failed who run SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, Postgres etc

You can build a successful business on anyone of them. The difference between success and failure is getting mostly the right people with the appropriate skills. That's in your IT, Sales, Production, Purchasing.

I don't work on SQL Server, not because its I think it's inferior, I don't work on SQL Server because my skills aren't as good as my skills in Oracle, and as a result i get paid better. The same for the other DBMS.

This "my DBMS is better than your DBMS" says more about how insecure some devs are

I agree with you, software projects have failed in either databases.
I'm just researching about the initial cost of having either database, and how far one can go with a free version/free db.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I agree with you, software projects have failed in either databases.
I'm just researching about the initial cost of having either database, and how far one can go with a free version/free db.

I'm glad you asked the question. Many developers would seem to default to the MS technologies for a variety of motivations but I believe that cross platform and cross DB development is becoming a more viable design choice with tremendous potential benefit to the developer and customer.

 

[zippy]

I agree with you, software projects have failed in either databases.
I'm just researching about the initial cost of having either database, and how far one can go with a free version/free db.

You can go far with these free versions. But you may find it isn't lack of functionality that drives the decision to upgrade, but availability of skills, support and in some cases regulation.

Just about every Oracle dev I know will be reluctant to take a job that isn't on either Oracle 10g or 11g enterprise.

The cv just doesn't look as good when it shows too much without the enterprise editions.