3 ms·

The goal is to show Windows folk that the Linux ecosystem has changed greatly over the last 1/2 decade. I know _a lot_ of Windows dev who are afraid of Linux -

by latch 16y ago

The goal is to show Windows folk that the Linux ecosystem has changed greatly over the last 1/2 decade. I know _a lot_ of Windows dev who are afraid of Linux - thinking they have to grab source, make/configure it when the right options and hope like hell.

rbanffy 16y ago
Showing a terminal window doesn't help calming the average MCSE...
viraptor 16y ago
Then you might show the supporting tools, scalability, write a nice article, show the tool in action, etc. etc. -- Not show that X installs in Y seconds and then spend a couple of minutes looking at a scaled down installer of SQL server. Showing such "comparison" along with texts like "wtf is up with that". This video is not "showing" anything - it's making fun of SQL server installation procedure.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  I think wanting to install .NET and IIS is worthy of a WTF. You are installing a database server, not a website. If you want to install a web front-end to the server, you should run its own installer (and, probably, not run it on the same box as the db server itself) The less you install on the database box, the less stuff you have to upgrade, the less exposure to security critical bugs you have and the less downtime for upgrading you will get. Mandating .NET framework and IIS is just dumb.
  - viraptor 16y ago
    Sure - it's a WTF. But if you want to show that X is better than Y to professionals, you don't say "Y sucks omgwtfbbq". We're (mostly) capable of reading lists of dependencies and a summary like "dependencies of X are: ... and weight ...MB, while dependencies of Y are: ... and weight ...MB, but we don't see the reason for dependencies: ...". Pointing fingers and laughing usually makes people aggressive, instead of showing a valid point. It's not dumb - there's a reason why it's installed as a dependency, even though it has bad sides too. Latch wrote "The goal is to show Windows folk" - there are ways to show things without ridiculing the opposition. It's HN, not some other service, so let's try to keep the level high.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      I completely agree that this is not - and should not be - the place for childish behaviour. It's however, hard to show MS SQL's installed side by side with Debian's APT and not look like you are trying to ridicule SQL Server. The WTF's are mostly noise I really haven't noticed until a second pass through them. And "Windows folk" may very well not be appropriate terminology. This is a hacker place. There are Windows users, Windows enthusiasts (who tend to severly mod me down when I get carried away) and some Windows developers (the kind that develops Windows, not for Windows) and we should really try to keep everything civilized. A humorous jab here and there won't hurt, however.
  - matwood 16y ago
    The thing that you're missing is that MSSQl is much more than just a database server. Now, I agree that if all you're trying to do is install the bare minimum RDBMS then IIS shouldn't be required. .Net though is always going to be required because you can write extended stored procedures in c# and have full access to the .Net object library (very cool btw). IIS is going to be required when installing parts of MSSQL like SSRS or MSAS since they can interact with client tools and users through IIS.
ratsbane 16y ago
As far as that goes it's a reasonable demonstration. I suspect many people will note how insignificant the actual installation time is in the context of the entire lifecycle. You might also point out the cost difference. Depending on the terms under which you must license it, the MS SQL option could cost $25,000 vs Postgres at ... $0. To a bigcorp that's nothing, but when you start running a bunch of those servers it adds up fast. http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/SQL-Server-2008-Enterprise-Edition/product/E06A3697/?WT.mc_id=sqlserversite_enterpriselink http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/SQL-Server-2008-Enterpr... Personally, I prefer Postgres to MS SQL because 1) it runs on *nix; 2) It's open-source; 3) significantly cheaper; 4) supports recursive queries; etc.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

by latch 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago

Showing a terminal window doesn't help calming the average MCSE...

viraptor 16y ago

Then you might show the supporting tools, scalability, write a nice article, show the tool in action, etc. etc. -- Not show that X installs in Y seconds and then spend a couple of minutes looking at a scaled down installer of SQL server. Showing such "comparison" along with texts like "wtf is up with that". This video is not "showing" anything - it's making fun of SQL server installation procedure.

rbanffy 16y ago
I think wanting to install .NET and IIS is worthy of a WTF. You are installing a database server, not a website. If you want to install a web front-end to the server, you should run its own installer (and, probably, not run it on the same box as the db server itself) The less you install on the database box, the less stuff you have to upgrade, the less exposure to security critical bugs you have and the less downtime for upgrading you will get. Mandating .NET framework and IIS is just dumb.
- viraptor 16y ago
  Sure - it's a WTF. But if you want to show that X is better than Y to professionals, you don't say "Y sucks omgwtfbbq". We're (mostly) capable of reading lists of dependencies and a summary like "dependencies of X are: ... and weight ...MB, while dependencies of Y are: ... and weight ...MB, but we don't see the reason for dependencies: ...". Pointing fingers and laughing usually makes people aggressive, instead of showing a valid point. It's not dumb - there's a reason why it's installed as a dependency, even though it has bad sides too. Latch wrote "The goal is to show Windows folk" - there are ways to show things without ridiculing the opposition. It's HN, not some other service, so let's try to keep the level high.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    I completely agree that this is not - and should not be - the place for childish behaviour. It's however, hard to show MS SQL's installed side by side with Debian's APT and not look like you are trying to ridicule SQL Server. The WTF's are mostly noise I really haven't noticed until a second pass through them. And "Windows folk" may very well not be appropriate terminology. This is a hacker place. There are Windows users, Windows enthusiasts (who tend to severly mod me down when I get carried away) and some Windows developers (the kind that develops Windows, not for Windows) and we should really try to keep everything civilized. A humorous jab here and there won't hurt, however.
- matwood 16y ago
  The thing that you're missing is that MSSQl is much more than just a database server. Now, I agree that if all you're trying to do is install the bare minimum RDBMS then IIS shouldn't be required. .Net though is always going to be required because you can write extended stored procedures in c# and have full access to the .Net object library (very cool btw). IIS is going to be required when installing parts of MSSQL like SSRS or MSAS since they can interact with client tools and users through IIS.

ratsbane 16y ago

As far as that goes it's a reasonable demonstration. I suspect many people will note how insignificant the actual installation time is in the context of the entire lifecycle. You might also point out the cost difference. Depending on the terms under which you must license it, the MS SQL option could cost $25,000 vs Postgres at ... $0. To a bigcorp that's nothing, but when you start running a bunch of those servers it adds up fast. http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/SQL-Server-2008-Enterprise-Edition/product/E06A3697/?WT.mc_id=sqlserversite_enterpriselink http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/SQL-Server-2008-Enterpr... Personally, I prefer Postgres to MS SQL because 1) it runs on *nix; 2) It's open-source; 3) significantly cheaper; 4) supports recursive queries; etc.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]