Re: OpenQM vs. Everything Else


Bill H wrote:
Dawn:

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message...

[snipped]

I love the way you boys fight ;-) ...

The question from my perspective is whether there is a reason to
switch to MS on the server?

I work with both environments. I'm familiar with both well beyond a normal
IT person. I'm also ignorant of both well short of technical "experts"
(kind of gives an idea of the complexities involved here). :-)

Both environments are very suitable when setup and managed properly. Some
like Java, others like .NET. Some like UniVerse, some like UniData. Some
like MV, others like SQL. If one's objectives and expertise are in line
with one technology it is always recommended to use that technology; don't
change unless one's objectives have changed to some critical point. What is
that critical point? I don't know...each situation is different. But, the
general rule is to stay with what you got unless you need something else;
then step into the change lightly. We in the MV world know about this
concept. :-)

I agree with this related to production systems. I'm giving myself the
luxury of doing some non-production investigation so I have all options
somewhat equally in front of me. I could go with my gut on some of
these, but I've decided to take some time to know a little more and
make more informed decisions. The SQL vs MV decision is part of what
prompted me to tackle the RM more directly. I like a lot of features
of SQL Server, for example, but it is still based on a data model whose
flaws I don't want to accept.

Similarly with Linux and Windows, I suspect there really is one of
these that provides a lower cost of ownership for the long haul, but I
agree that sticking with what you have until you have requirements to
do otherwise is likely the least expensive option.

I know you haven't spent your entire career in a Windows server
environment, but it sounds like the majority of those you work with are
there now. Although many have replaced Novell with Windows NT and
following, I have not seen a huge rush to shed all flavors of unix from
shops. If I were the one with the budget for a large shop now, I would
not suggest they run out and switch their production *nix environment
to Windows, would you?

Switching, as I noted above, needs to be justified, as there's generally
little reason to make a change for change sake. We've mostly stopped using
Linux for the dbms because of upgrade and support issues.

That's good to know.

We wouldn't have
made that statement five years ago, as Windows NT wasn't too stable with the
Windows MV implementations.

Or with anything if you didn't want to be forced to bounce your
production server regularly.

Now, however, MV runs great on Windows 2003.

As has been pointed out...in Linux the easy things are hard and the hard
things are even harder. In Windows the easy things are easy and the hard
things are $29.95. :-)

Laughing. By the way, I cannot read your posting in the thread on Pick
query languages compared to SQL through the google groups reader for
some reason. I can see that you posted, but it won't show it to me.
If you feel like reposting, that would be appreciated. Thanks. --dawn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Exchange 2000 Server Virtual Memory Fragmentation
    ... If you are running Windows 2000 standard edition, as you cannot use /3 GB ... contributes to this problem quite a bit is incorrect use of the /3GB switch ... Exchange or SQL ServerT or whatever you might have running on your server, ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange2000.information.store)
  • Re: SBS 2000 DNS & Domain issues (connecting)
    ... Our network setup. ... Each computer and server are then connected to the switch. ... Windows cannot determine the user or computer name. ...
    (microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000)
  • Re: Scheduling AD defrag?
    ... I am not using the /3GB switch but as I've said I don't know if I've seen it ... I am running all Windows XP SP2 clients and mac osx 10.3 clients. ... that are running Windows Server 2003 or Windows 2000 Server ... server from any workstation happen to be slow at the time of the defrag. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Re: Virtual Memory Error
    ... The /3GB switch is supported only on the following operating systems: ... Windows XP Professional ... Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition ... than 1GB of RAM it thinks that it hit the jackpot all will try to grab as much RAM as it can. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: Virtual Memory Minimum Too Low
    ... Use of the /3GB switch in Exchange Server 2003 on a Windows Server ... Note You do not have to use the /3GB switch on Microsoft Windows Small ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)