Posted by J. Clarke on 06/26/06 06:42

Zvonko wrote:

>
> "Stu" <stuart.ainsworth@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151291106.648074.110690@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> It all boils down to one thing: the almight dollar.
>>
>> What business reason would Microsoft have for porting SQL Server to
>> another platform? SQL Server has become a vital part of the Microsoft
>> development structure, but it was initially a method to convince
>> administrators to migrate more servers from a UNIX platform to Windows
>> (kind of, "oh, you need a database product? We got one. Now buy some
>> licenses for Wndows servers...")
>
> Oh, no thanks, your competitors have the solution that works fine on all
> platforms for the same price.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be on SQL Server newsgroup if I am not
> using it, but it would be nice if SQL Server works on all platforms. That
> is the thing I don't like Microsoft. They're so deep in profit, that they
> don't see a customer. Why can't you buy SQL Server Enterprise, and run it
> on Linux? What are they afraid of? Bancropcy? Or finding out that Windows
> platform isn't that popular? I wonder ....

Perhaps they are afraid of violating their license--remember that SQL Server
is based on code licensed from Sybase.

But the bottom line is that Microsoft is in business to sell Microsoft
products. If you want a different solution then you need to go elsewhere.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

[Back to original message]