Alternatives to MS SQL Server for Dynamic Content Website? 105
Cindy asks: "My current employer has a handful of websites, which are massive and messy entanglement of ASP on IIS with MS SQL storing the dynamic content. As the company scaled down to only 1 full-time temp (me) in IS and a sales manager overseeing servers + managing web sites, the company would like to trim down behind the back. More specifically, they would like to let go of the use of SQL server altogether. I've used Zope before, but I'm not sure how well it works on Windows. Then there's ColdFusion, but I don't know anything about it. What other choices do I have?"
"The replacement has the following requirements:
- Must run on Windows (they're a Microsoft reseller after all)
- Stable, mature, secure for corporate strength (over 10 product categories, each with 8-10 products)
- Easy to learn, easy to use, and easy to maintain for someone who is comfortable with server maintenance and website design, but not too knowledgeable. I'll leave the company by January
- Not too much programming involved. HTML and ASP/PHP-ish are OK."
Re:Install Linux for fucks sake (Score:2)
Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server, too. Installed by default, even.
Why? (Score:2)
You see, it is going to cost them a hell of a lot more than that to rewrite all of their code to use a different environment.
Re:Why? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Again, I could be totally wrong about this. SQL Server is not for everyone; talk to your doctor. Professional driver on closed course: do not attempt. Must be 18 years or older to enter. Guarantee void in Tennessee.
Re:Why? (Score:1, Interesting)
MS SQL to MySQL
and from
WebLogic to JBoss
Reason? I wan't to GPL our entire code-base so we can spread our code.
Reason? We are a non-profit organization which would benefit if similar organizations would use our code base too. And, while we can afford paying the license many of the these cannot. Therefore, GPL makes sense for us.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, there isn't NEARLY enough detail here to give this person ANY meaningful answer. There are also enough restrictions that it makes it all but impossible to reccomend ANYTHING.
Frankly, it sounds like this company is about toast. About the best thing they could do is convert the site to mostly static HTML (or leave it as ASP) and go host it somewhere with one of the bazillion web hosting companies. Most offer an NT platform option with SQL server access for pretty cheap (of course the Linux hosting options are generally a bit cheaper.)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
I have a couple of questions for ya' (Score:5, Insightful)
As one full-time temp, do you really have the personpower to re-write or re-implement everything, probably temporarily breaking things in the meanwhile? You'll be a wreck.
Why not leave it?
2. Licensing.
Tell us about how much you're paying for the different licensing of the MS server components you use. Maybe a libre solution might make more sense? Could you argue that in exchange for cutting out the licensing costs, you be given a few other temp team members to work with?
I think we really need more information before we can tell you what's best for your particular circumstances.
One more thing: Cold Fusion is soooo 90's.
Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:5, Insightful)
You compare Zope to SQL Server. Zope is an applications server. SQL Server is an RDBMS, a relational database. You can't replace SQL Server with Zope. Zope can use SQL Server. Since you've already licensed the expensive (and, in my opinion, EXCELLENT) SQL Server, why not continue to use it? If you want to use Zope instead of ASP, go ahead, but what makes you think it's going to be any easier to maintain than what you've got now? Or rather, will the headache of converting to Zope (or whatever) be worth the end result? Could it be that your current setup is "a messy entanglement" because of the way it was written, and not due to the tools you are using?
Perhaps you should hire a consultant to look over what you've got and help you figure out the best solution. It's hard to make a good recommendation when we don't know WHY your current situation is so entangled, or how hard it's going to be to untangle it.
Re:Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:1)
Great comment except for the EXCELLENT SQL Server part
My advice: convince your obviously failing employer that Windows really is just a client platform, and go Linux/Apache/{Perl|PHP}/{Postgresql|MySQL} or some solution along those lines.
Re:Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm no Microsoft-lover, but SQL Server is THE BEST product they produce. Have you actually used it?
We never have stability problems with it. It's security record is not too bad. It's list of features is amazing. It's speed is amazing. It's really great software. I have heard of things lacking in Postgresql/MySQL which are implemented quite nicely in SQL Server. On the other hand, I haven't heard of anything in Postgresql/MySQL that is NOT in SQL Server, other than their price.
Re:Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:2)
Oracle on the other hand really out performs SQL Server in its (Oracle specific granted) SQL extensions, Stored Procedure functionality and clustering capabilities. But Oracle lacks the tools to make it easy for a new user to get started running the database. TOAD is the closest thing out there and it runs an additional $800!
MySQL has a pretty good tool in phpMyAdmin and it is a great little database for simple things but the SQL available to it is lacking some key features like sub-selects and a scripting language. There are lots of threads on the pros and cons of MySQL.
I haven't used PostgreSQL yet, but I understand there's a phpMyAdmin like interface for it as well. It seems to have the perfect match of price and functionality out of all of these. The biggest drawback that I know of is that it's not as readily supported on hosting sites and it's not quite as easy to find support.
Well, what started out as a rebuttle to your praise of SQL Server turned into a review of several options for the questioner. I hope that helps.
Re:Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:1)
MS SQL Server doesn't have multiversioned concurrency control, that only Oracle and PostgreSQL have. Without this, readers block writers and writers block readers on tables involved in a transaction. This thing alone makes me an Oracle/PostgreSQL boy (though I don't want to touch Oracle sysadmining with a 10 foot pole).
PostgreSQL doesn't lack too many things compared to MS SQL (although it *does* lack a few things critical for larger installations).
I can't say anything good about MySQL. It's barely faster. It's so much harder on me to write proper code (but I haven't been using InnoDB and all these other fancy things).
Re:Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:2)
You don't remember correctly: SQL Server started out like NT did, it was a partnership between Microsoft and Sybase. Like they did with IBM over OS/2, Microsoft took their toys and left the sandbox, and SQL Server was born.
And to be honest, at this point SQL Server is a much better product than Sybase.
MS SQL Server doesn't have multiversioned concurrency control, that only Oracle and PostgreSQL have. Without this, readers block writers and writers block readers on tables involved in a transaction. This thing alone makes me an Oracle/PostgreSQL boy (though I don't want to touch Oracle sysadmining with a 10 foot pole).
Have you looked at SQL Server since version 6.0?
That's the default behavior, sure, but SQL Server supports several isolation levels:
-READ UNCOMMITTED
-READ COMMITTED
-REPEATABLE READ
-SERIALIZABLE
Granted, it's not as good as it is in Oracle, but if the application is developed correctly, and you establish and release your locks in the same order every time, you can almost guarantee you won't get a deadlock. And if you do, the deadlock manager starting in SQL Server 7.0 is just this side of fantastic (have you even seen how to stop the deadly embrace on OS/400?).
Perhaps you should refresh yourself on the locking symantecs of 7.0 and up:
http://databasejournal.com/features/mssql/artic
A database is like anything else: there are different tools for different jobs. I prefer the flexibility of Oracle most of the time, but it is a 300lb gorilla (though not as difficult to administer as one would think).
For Windows-type applications, SQL Server isn't a bad little database, but it requires a very disciplined developement team (and plan) to write good applications for it.
Personally, I think developers don't use (or consider using) flat files often enough. For transaction data, I certainly wouldn't consider it (three phase commits are our friend), but a large amount of "dynamic" content would benifit from the huge performance boost that comes with manipulating plain text.
Re:Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:2)
Yes, MS SQL Server has several isolation levels, but they achieve this with row level locking, not with MVCC. PostgreSQL's MVCC means that reads are never blocked by writes. To illustrate the difference take a large table that's busy in MS SQL server and delete a whole bunch of rows. Chances are good (unless you have an absurd number of locks configured) that your transaction will fail. With PostgreSQL it would work, and reads wouldn't be blocked at all while your delete transaction was happening.
I like MS SQL Server, but PostgreSQL really is an amazing product. If your admins don't mind mixing in a Linux box it really is worth the time to take a look at it.
reads are never blocked by writes (Score:2)
multiversioned concurrency control (Score:2)
* replicate to a reporting DB, and tell users their queries don't reflect current data, but data 30 minutes old or whatever.
* run large queries with dirty reads. Yeah, that's what I want, to give up ACID properties.
* watch updates grind to a halt as queries lock lots of rows / pages, because the SQL Server team thinks that's a good way to get a stable read. I suppose it is, except for MVCC...
Interbase also has MVCC by the way, as do a few other DMBSs that I don't recall at the moment.
SQL Server people sometimes brush off the MVCC issue, pointing out that if all your queries are well indexed, they go fast enough that it doesn't block that much. That's helpful for many apps (where with good tuning, queries can all run fast), but there are also queries which simply need to read lots of data, because of what they fundamentally are doing and even with tuning they will take many seconds to run.
Re:Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:2)
I always thought that was Excel. I always found Excel rock-solid, flexible and robust.
Have you actually used it?
I've used it. Compared to Oracle, *helluva* lot easier to run.
It's list of features is amazing.
I haven't used it since 6.5, but I did wish it supported using outer-joins in the context of inner joins as well, as opposed to forcing the user to temporary tables. Can you see actual output in the middle of T-SQL stored procedure w/o having to wait for it complete? Is it any easier to integrate extended stored procedures?
In terms of features, it did surprise me oracle was short in a few areas (e.g. some of the limitations oracle had in update statements that MS SQL didn't).
On the flip side, Perl integration was rough at the time. I wish it was officially supported by MS. Also, it's replication was **AWFUL**.
It's security record is not too bad.
That's a matter of perspective. With a default administration account, a common name by default, no password by default, the admin port open and running by default, and a *lot* of folks running sql server on the same box as their web server, hackers quickly figured out they just had to point their own version of the ms admin tool at any webserver they saw servering ASP pages and *boom* full access to all data. Scary. I belive several sources carried an AP story about the problem, including CNN & Slashdot. (This was before Timothy & Michael made a habit of posting pictures of cats on the home page.)
So, all-in-all, MS SQL isn't a bad product by just about any standard, but it's far from perfect.
-Bill
Re:Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:2)
You mean, like 'root' is a common admin account?
a common name by default
eh?
no password by default
Wrong. The user is prompted for an administrator password to use upon installation. Some dumbass administrators were entering blank passwords. This has nothing to do with Microsoft. I believe in versions after 7.0 they now make a bigger deal about entering a strong password.
the admin port open and running by default
This one I am not familiar with... we have our SQL Server firewalled, and use non-default ports, so I don't remember how things were by default.
and a *lot* of folks running sql server on the same box as their web server
As long as the SQL Server ports are blocked, and the webserver is kept secure/patched, this should not be a problem.
Most of the things you listed are problems SQL admins have, not problems in the software.
I was talked about SQL Server having very few exploits, relatively speaking.
Re:Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:2)
Allowing a user to enter a blank password w/o any warnings, etc. has EVERYTHING to do with Microsoft.
As long as the SQL Server ports are blocked, and the webserver is kept secure/patched, this should not be a problem.
The problem was that this was often not the case. This was probably 3-4 years back, when it wasn't uncommon to simply have a router and no firewall at all.
I'd agree that this one in particular has nothing to do w/ MS, but I would still strongly assert the first one does.
-Bill
Re:Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:1)
SQL Server has a power, flexibility and ease-of-use which enable it to be used as a platform for applications for which any other database server would be completely inappropriate. It's like MS Office in this respect: you can build intricate systems in Excel VBA (and many business users do...), and it's only when those systems have to scale up, show true resilience, or adapt to new requirements that the inadequacy of Office as a platform for applications development is revealed.
With SQL Server, you can push a whole lot of business logic onto the server via T-SQL and stored procedures, and leave the VB monkeys to write cute GUI front-ends for the resulting behemoth. This is really seductive - as a developer, I love the way T-SQL lets you build what is in effect an API to a database, with named procedures and parameters offering a gateway to an encapsulated data model (the actual tables, relationships and queries that service the client's requests). But beyond a certain point this whole model of development (client-server, with business logic wrapped up in triggers and stored procedures and a monkeyed-up GUI servicing the end-users) is dangerously limiting - you're too closely bound to the platform, and the platform can only carry so much weight.
SQL Server is clever in ways that are often very helpful, but the minute it stops you thinking of the persistence layer of your applications as essentially dumb, and dumb for a good reason - the same reason you don't keep your brains in your stomach - you start saving up troubles for the future. At least with MySQL you'd never be tempted to make that mistake...
Overall I'm a fan of SQL Server, which I agree is one of the best things MS have done; but it needs judicious handling, else you'll end up married to the beast.
Re:Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:1)
Under Oracle, a trigger's conditions can be
ON [ DELETE | CREATE | MODIFY ]
PER [ ROW | UPDATE ]
FIRE [ BEFORE | AFTER ]
The MODIFY PER ROW BEFORE trigger can inspect the row before and after the modification, and can block the update by returning FALSE. All triggers are triggered when the statement is exectured, not on the COMMIT.
Re:Either I am confused, or you are. (Score:2)
Overrated my ass, but back to the topic - in response to the responses..
Oracle OPS (or the new RAC) kill MS SQL clustered servers on reliability/scalability/performance. If you've got some big corporate database, and you've got DBA worth their stuff that don't need cute graphics, go Oracle by all means. From the sound of it though, this guy has a small database backing a website, not some enterprise monster. For a small webserver database like most of these are, I think PostgreSQL is the best choice bar none when you consider its cost and simplicity. I only included MySQL as an alternative in hopes of pre-quenching and MySQL vs PostgreSQL flames.
The Mostly Open Source Java MVC Solution (Score:2)
The above meets all of your stated requirements, and its all very battle hardened and will scale as big as you need. The databases are probably the limit on scalability, but I'd say you are at least breaking even switching from MS SQL-Server to either Postgres or Firebird. It's also pretty platform independent, again limited by the databases. Except for the JRE, it's all open source.
If you want to be cutting edge, look at Cocoon from the Apache Jakarta project for an XML/XSLT based presentation layer. Throw in Apache AXIS for SOAP somehow to round out a fully "web services" buzzword compliant system.
The LAMP (linux, apache, MySQL, Perl/Python/PHP) option is another one that was the "hot" thing at least until IBM decided to invest a billion dollars and Apache Jakarta technologies started exploding.
Why are you converting? (Score:2)
I hate MS SQL server as much as anyone and try to steer clients away from it whenever possible, but I have to say that it's not a completely shitty database. If you have an application that works with it, is tightly integrated with it, and the company you work for is almost down the tubes anyway, you need a hell of a lot more than a platform conversion to save you.
Anyway, for what it's worth your question is unanswerable because you have given no indication of what you actually need this database or web platform to *DO*. (Coincidentally, that's probably the reason the company dug its own grave, but I digress.) There are plenty of application servers out there and plenty of databases. Some are free; some are commercial. I find it interesting that you don't seem to be able to afford to run an SQL server (which costs about $1500 to license for web use) and are looking at the ColdFusion platform (which retails for $5000/server for the enterprise edition, which you will probably need if you want to do anything normal like clustering).
*sigh* The only worse Ask Slashdot question I can think of is "Alternatives to Microsoft Windows?" COME ON ALREADY!
~GoRK
Eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
What you don't say is whether you are supporting online sales of the products, or if this is just a brochure site.
If it's just the latter, all you need is some static html and a little templating. Certainly no database. I also don't understand why you want to change from asp. It's certainly more than adaquate for this job.
well gee... (Score:1, Troll)
see, i don't mean to be rude but you've chosen to work at what i'd consider to be an unethical company. that is your right.
you're asking a question with goofy restrictions on the answer to help a company that funds a company that is actively hostile to the members of this community.
well gee. how can i put this?
go fuck off.
Re:well gee... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think that you can just turn your back whenever a "goofy restriction" is in place, you are dooming the world to MS dominance.
Re:well gee... (Score:4, Insightful)
What community is that? I'm a Slashdot reader, and I use Microsoft products all the time.
Not everyone on here is an anti-Microsoft zealot. (I'd wager the majority reading this site are accessing it from a Windows computer.)
Re:well gee... (Score:1)
And who said Slashdot Polls [slashdot.org] are useless....
Re:well gee... (Score:3, Insightful)
Too true! I've come to the conclusion that there is no moral high ground to be had anymore in IT. It seems like every technology camp is intent on demeaning everyone else because they believe themselves to be superior. It's just another form of primitive tribalism where each tribe attempts to propagate itself through the zealotry of its constituency. The relative merits of each style of development and technology philosophy become lost and almost irrelevant in the cacophony of arrogance. It's getting very old...
The bottom line is that I'm going to implement the best tool for the job for a customer using whatever vendor makes the most sense. When a given vendor becomes too much of a pain in the ass, I'll move on to the next, and so on.
My viewpoint leads me to believe that Microsoft, OSS, IBM, and a few others will be around a long time to come. Some other vendors (Sun, Apple, etc) will be too much of a pain to bother with, and they will remain in their respective niche corners. Some of them may die entirely (possibly Sun, among others), and some may even transcend niche status (possibly Apple, among others). We'll see.
Re:well gee... (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you know what company she works for? She doesn't say in her submission. Do you know this submitter?
For sake of argument, let's just assume you don't. For sake of argument, let's just assume that you keyed in on the words "Microsoft reseller" and let fly with the spit and invective. Let's just assume that, shall we?
You ignorant, arrogant bastard. How dare you jump to conclusions about this poor person's company based solely on two words in an "Ask Slashdot?" You wanna talk about "actively hostile?" How's this for "actively hostile?" You, Kevin, give the community of computer hobbyists and open source advocates a bad name, and that's saying something. People wonder why Linux and open-source software in general are having trouble gaining acceptance in the market. This post of yours is an excellent example of why this is so. For every generous and helpful soul out there in the community, there's some arrogant little shit like you telling people to "go fuck off" when they ask for help.
Bite me, Kevin Lyda.
Oh, one more thing. You're not e.e. cummings, you know. Learn to use a fucking shift key. Asshole.
Whew. That felt good. Some people just needs flamin', you know?
Re:well gee... (Score:2)
*blinks*
*reads again*
You sir (or, should it be the case, madam), are my hero.
Re:well gee... (Score:3, Informative)
the fact is that microsoft is actively trying to destroy linux and free software. they don't believe in competition, they believe in monopoly. they believe in putting free software developers and admins out of work. and they use a slew of tactics to do that.
i do think people should have choice. i have nothing against other closed source software publishers like oracle, sun, compaq or apple. but then that's because they are not actively targeting my hobby, my livelihood and the hobbies/livelihoods of my friends. they do compete, but not in an agressive and frequently unethical manner.
so, yes, i'm annoyed by people that support such an organisation. and i'm utterly disgusted by people that support such organisations and have the utter gall to then come to communities which have a large number of free software users with a question about how to spooge off our work.
so rant all you want, that's my perception and i'm sticking to it. i'm more then willing to help people who are not blatently unethical.
Re:well gee... (Score:3, Informative)
I reiterate my original two points. One: you are an arrogant, judgmental prick who does more harm to the reputation of the community through this attitude than a whole truckloads of Microsofts could ever do. And two: you really, really need to learn how to use the shift key.
Re:well gee... (Score:2)
Is he a prick? definitely..
"more harm to the reputation of the community through this attitude than a whole truckloads of Microsofts could ever do"
as I have first-hand experience of the work he's done.
To a significant degree due to him, a certain small multi-national runs its business on linux, makes decent amount of money running linux, approaching hundreds of thousands of european consumers make use of linux every week (without knowing it) and a reasonable number of people make their living working on developing for and maintaining linux based systems. Finally, and most importantly, a fair number of high-level management/boardroom types now think "linux == good".
So he might be grumpy, he might not tolerate fools, but he has done plenty for the 'community'. Perhaps you should retract your comment of "judgmental prick", as from here it appears quite a hypocritical accusation.
--paulj
Re:well gee... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah right. Oracle, Sun, Compaq, IBM and Apple would attack you in a heartbeat if they thought it would improve their bottom line.
It wasn't that long ago when Apple and IBM were the competition-crushing-FUDing-"It will only run on Apple Hardware" behemoth, and Microsoft was the rebeleous start up.
Re:well gee... (Score:1)
Re:well gee... (Score:2)
Hey, get bent. Flame the guy all you want, but you stay the hell away from Buffy.
;-)
Re:well gee... (Score:1)
MS might compete with OSS, but they're not out to destroy you. They might feel a little pressure from some aspects of OSS, but the vast majority of their decisions have NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.
Go hang out with RMS and you guys can sit in your lofty seats and develop software for the GNU/Hurd platform. I'll be making loads of cash developing MS software, and I won't think twice about your trivial moral judgement.
well then (Score:2)
Re:well then (Score:2)
I know (Score:1, Troll)
I know the answer to your problem. But I will not tell you because youre a MS reseller. See, its just like the time I had to make several vbscripts that automated many common tasks in windows2000, but refused to submit it anywhere to technet or newsgroups.
I will echo this sentiment from the above poster.. as a voice from (at least part of ) the linux community when in time of economic need, companies come running to the geek community to help them sell windows: fuck off.
Re:I know (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of attitude and a stance of open-source advocacy are incompatible. When using, or even thinking of using, open-source software, one has nowhere to turn but to the community itself for advice and help. When someone does that, it's critically important that the members of the community not be assholes. This kind of behavior just shatters whatever tiny grains of credibility the community of hobbyists and hackers has managed to accumulate over the years.
In other words, take your mama's advice. If you can't say something nice, shut the fuck up.
Scenario (Score:3, Funny)
LinuxFan: "Well, you get support from the community. Take a look at this 'ask slahsdot' for example, where a reseller asks a question about SQL."
PHB: "People are telling her to fuck off because she's evil!"
LinuxFan: "Er... well... maybe, but Microsoft would tell you to fuck off and charge you $100..."
Re:I know (Score:2)
It's free software. It doesn't have to compete, it doesn't have to attract anyone outside those who are naturally interested anyway, and most of all, it doesn't need to be particularly polite.
No one's going to be sacked if some newbie gets offended when they inadvertantly press someone's buttons and get mildly roasted.
People will continue to produce it, people will continue to use it. Some people are going to disagree with other people, some will be helpful, some will be rude, some will just walk away shaking their heads in perplexion that anyone would give their hard work away for free.
In other words, if a user is so thin-skinned that they're offended at the response freely offered by a member of the public to an enquiry, then they should invest in software that pays the salary of some poor bastard in support to be nice to them.
Re:I know (Score:2)
Well, I can say that I'm on your side. I agree with you. My own opinion of Linux as an operating system is not high, so I think the danger of it becoming anything more than a minor footnote is minimal. But that's not the issue.
The prevailing opinion in the non-commercial software community is that people should use, or at the very least consider, non-commercial alternatives to software from companies like Microsoft. The reasons given range from the practical (the assertion that non-commercial software is more secure is always a popular one) to the ideological (read anything RMS has ever written for an example of this approach). I don't agree with this basic idea completely, but I certainly understand, accept, and respect the opinion. (Well, mostly. Respect is a fuzzy thing, you know?)
The kind of shit that went on in this discussion runs counter to that prevailing opinion. If I were Cindy, I would run, not walk, to Microsoft and buy whatever it takes to get my job done. Say what you like about Microsoft, but nobody at that company actually tells customers or potential customers to fuck off. (Well, knowing my luck, on a few occasions that's exactly what's happened. But those events, if they've happened, are just as unacceptable as this one, and-- again, if they've even happened-- they're the exception to the rule.)
What you're basically saying here is that it doesn't matter if people are assholes to other people. You're saying that people who were going to use non-commercial software will do so anyway, and people who choose not to based on rudeness probably would have so chosen for some other reason. In the most literal sense, you're probably correct. But that doesn't mean you're right.
People like RMS-- and his followers-- like to say that the true purpose of the open software movement is a political one, not a technological one. Well, just as RMS's off-putting personality runs counter to that purpose, so does telling newbies to go fuck off.
Does it matter? No, not really, not in the grand scheme of things. But that doesn't make it okay.
Depends on your usage... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Depends on your usage... (Score:2)
I've been getting an ASP/MSSQL friend to take off the MS blinders. He's intrigued by PHP (it can do all his ASP-type stuff but multi-platform) but MySQL is a real turn-off to him, because he's used to "real database" features (subselects, stored procedures, etc). I've been telling him about PostgreSQL, and he sounds very interested, but getting it to run on Windows seems to be a real pain in the ass for a Windows guy. So he's been using MySQL on Windows and living with its limitations, which aren't that bad but could be avoided with PostgreSQL if he could get the darn thing to run.
Re:Depends on your usage... (Score:2)
Re:Depends on your usage... (Score:2)
CREATE PROCEDURE myProc @param int
AS
SELECT * FROM tbl1 WHERE foo=@param;
SELECT * FROM tbl2 WHERE bar=@param;
and then being able to iterate through the different rowsets on the client. I couldn't find any way to do this easily on any of the other DBMSs I tried (I didn't try Oracle).
Re:Depends on your usage... (Score:2)
Remember: not an expert!
Re:Depends on your usage... (Score:2)
Re:Depends on your usage... (Score:2)
I have used both Mysql and postgres. I like postgres better than Mysql but I have not really tried out the new features in the latest version of MySql.
That said your should probably stick to MS SQL. I am guessing the people there know it and they can get support.
Not Cold Fusion (Score:1)
Re:Not Cold Fusion (Score:1)
Either convert Dynamic to Static, or outsource it! (Score:3, Insightful)
(Based on the fact that I've been in this position before and chose the wrong path, I offer this advice.)
First, given the lack of IT resources, you should be extremely wary of switching to a new technology (such as Zope). When you leave in January, there's no guarantee that anyone will understand Zope and it's likely that it won't be stable (or scalable). You may leave the company in a worse position than it is now.
Instead, I would offer two alternatives that could leave you in a more stable position:
Hope this helps.
-Peter
Re:Either convert Dynamic to Static, or outsource (Score:1)
Gee, that sounds like instant job security. Change that sentence to, "When you threaten to leave in January, you'll have them bent over a barrel. Demand a raise" ;) It's all coming together now.....
trim down? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anything else you get will require not only a lot of work to get running, but ongoing maintenence that it sounds like you can't do at this point.
what are you trying to accomplish? save money on licences? consolidate hardware? ease management? all of these motives lead to asp/sql server.
now, if you wanted security, flexibility, scalability, or performance, move away from asp/sql server.
Interbase/Firebird (Score:2, Interesting)
It has versions for Linux, Windows, some Unices, etc., so it's easier if you entually decide trash out M$ in the server side.
Re:Interbase/Firebird (Score:1)
go firebird! (and interbase, i guess)
Alternative? (Score:2)
Zope on Windows (Score:1)
A few caveats though:
Connecting to MS SQL server is a pain. The most common solution is to connect via ODBC and use the MS SQL driver. Be aware, however, that the current implementation of the Zope-ODBC adapter is not multi-threaded. A long running query will block all other queries. If you know where to look, it is possible to hack together a threaded connection.
As you said, you would like to part ways from MS SQL Server. Unfortunately, there aren't many inexpensive options in Microsoft land. If I were you, I might take a look at Firebird.
SQL Server (Score:2, Insightful)
SQL server is easier to set up and maintain than many other Database software. Why do you want to replace it?
Sybase Adaptive Server Anywhere (Score:4, Informative)
1) Is fast and very inexpensive compared to the other professional alternatives.
2) Is mature (been around 15+ years)
3) Is scalable from a DB size of 80k (seriously, it runs on RIM pagers) up to many gigabytes. It's used by places like McDonald's (their cash registers run it), the city of Edmonton (their hydro personnel run it on their PDAs when out in the field), etc.
4) Is available on oodles of platforms (Microsoft, Linux, *nix, etc.)
5) Requires *very* little maintenance or DB administration. If you're used to SQL Server, you will probably be amazed to see how easy it is to run/administer ASA.
6) Is self-tuning -- it has dynamic cache resizing, like MS SQL Server, as well as a great query optimizer with histogram-based selectivity and a fast join enumeration engine. It supports full ANSI SQL92 and a big chunk of ANSI SQL99, as well as T-SQL (like SQL Server).
7) Is supported by a well-built-up community of users, developers, and Sybase staff who regularly answer questions on the newsgroups, helping new users, helping others tweak their SQL, etc.
8) Has ODBC, TDS (like MS SQL Server), and ANSI/ISO ESQL/C interfaces.
But, don't take my word for it. Check out news://forums.sybase.com (the "sqlanywhere" newsgroups), and ask around. Check out www.sybase.com and download a free evaluation copy and see if it suits your needs.
Personally, at about $400 Canadian, I think that ASA is about the fastest, easiest, most capable DB server around for small to medium-sized DBs.
Re:This guy is an idiot. - MOD IF AGREED (Score:2)
"This guy" is named Cindy, you idiot.
Use Microsoft SQL server (Score:1)
You don't want alternatives. Your requirements are "Must be produced by Microsoft". You need XP, IIS, MSSQL server and some light ASP work. What's your alternative? Something that's going to be locked out of the API war next service pack? Riight.
Quit posting crap to slashdot. Do you own fucking job.
Re:Use Microsoft SQL server (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably the best thing for "the community" in this instance is for all y'all Microsoft-haters to learn when to keep your pie holes shut and just play nice with the other kids.
Re:Use Microsoft SQL server (Score:1)
Make a static HTML mirror, put it up, done (Score:2)
2 separate issues (Score:2, Informative)
RDBMS - SQL server, like many have commented, is an excellent and mature product, more than enuf horsepower to run ANYTHING you need (especially for a 1 person shop). If you can't afford it, use a free db (mysql, msql, postgres, flat files... search for something on freshmeat), since it looks like the requirements are not too heavy, and anything heavier requires more resources than you have to run.
Scripting Language - choose some language you know. certainly ASP is plenty powerful. Free alternatives like php are good, or jsps on tomcat. Zope is python based so you'll have to learn a whole new language if you don't already know it, and really for simple websites php is best.
If you only have one person to support it, and not a programmer at that, forget about any heavy duty database, or any multi-tiered architectures or proprietary app servers or anything fancy. Apache/php/mysql is a very popular free setup and more than powerful enough, and you'll find plenty of resources online. Definitely don't go with ColdFusion.
Just use in1 (Score:1)
Did I mention they do dynamic static publishing, output in XML, run a simple CRON, have User authentication built-in, include an e-commerce website with the license, integrate with PERL and other languages, run on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, and more!
don't do anything (Score:1, Interesting)
You know, I used to bash MS just as much as the next geek, and for a lot of stuff I still will, but I've seen huge sites running on SQL server using ASP (If you say tht you've seen them to, and they are slow, I will tell you that you may have seen them, but you've seen the poorly developed ones) Most of their technology is not "best of breed" but in most cases their solutions work, and when all the pieces are put together, they actually work fairly well....
Yes, I can get a more scalable DB server than SQL server (there is Oracle) but SQL Server is much easier to admin. I can get Verity as a search engine, but I can also install index server for free. Its not as felxible, but it works. I can get a better performing static web server (apache exists for windows) I can use my choice of scripting languages. I can use any number of tools for source control and I can even use notepad to develop in, but editting in Visual studio using Sourcesafe to develop in vbscript for IIS and Sql Server...... its a no brainer.... 95+% of the functionality of the best of breed performers, but it all works together seemelsssly and with almost no screwing with configurations.
Jump off the MS bashing bandwagon, evaluate the situation for what it is, and use tools appropriate for the job. MS reseller = use MS products, forget the linux zealots and bigotry and hoestly evaluate and you will find that they are pretty nice.
Begin the flames. I don't care. If you want to tell me I'm lying or crazy, you have either
a.) not touched windows solutions since NT4.0/IIS 4.0 and SQL server 6.5 or
b.) just not used it enough to know what you are talking about.
Go ahead and complain about that, like there is no learning curve on linux. Yeah, its only a conf file, but by the time the newbie learns to use vi, I have already reconfigured the windows server. (and before you assholes complain, I have no problem configuring any of the same tools under linux. My favorite editor is vi, and I use it fluently, and I STILL say the MS stuff, rated objectively, ain't bad.
Nice company (Score:1)
It sounds like you'll be getting little in the way of help or support on this one. If I were in that position, I'd be feeling very uncomfortable with my working conditions and would be looking for alternative employment asap.
If you want to do the company a favour before you leave, I'd echo the sentiments of:
1) Converting as much as you can into static content.
2) If you still have dynamic content to be served, move across to technologies that have a fairly large and well-established development community.
MySQL is fairly well used and works well under Windows IMHO. I personally choose PHP as a site scripting language. I've used it under both *NIX and Windows environments and have found it to be easy to learn & use and has a large base of developers available.
SQL bye bye (Score:1)
Dear Ask Slashdot (Score:2)
Has anyone found a silver bullet out there that will let us do really cool things for free?
We want to use dynamic content, but we don't want to do any programming, so there shouldn't be any programming involved in the product. Basically, when I leave the executives are going to be maintaining the website.
Can anyone help me?
Application server alternatives (Score:1)
Why MUST it run on Windows? I thought that you were looking for a stable, secure and easy to maintain solution...
* Stable, mature, secure for corporate strength (over 10 product categories, each with 8-10 products)
100 products that's static HTML territory. A flat text file database with Perl is an alternative look at DBman
* Easy to learn, easy to use, and easy to maintain for someone who is comfortable with server maintenance and website design, but not too knowledgeable. I'll leave the company by January
Dream on. Secure web applications aren't easy. It is a real job!
* Not too much programming involved. HTML and ASP/PHP-ish are OK.
Dreamweaver MX is point and click. Works for ASP and PHP and others.
I would say that you should run out and buy a few books on web applications and come back in six months...
All this, and in just under 2 months? (Score:2)
While MS solutions may not be the best on the planet, its useable, and would cost more in time and money to move to something else, regardless of platform, than you could save in the near-term.
Looks to me that you have neither.. Check out licensing breaks you can get for them, since they are a re-seller, then wait till January to come and hit the road as planned.
Microsoft reseller? (Score:1)
Zope a good option but I praise ColdFusion (Score:1)
"Paradoxically, even as we have higher and higher level programming tools with better and better abstractions, becoming a proficient programmer is getting harder and harder." -Joel Spolsky (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbst