It's a Tool
-
I got some feedback on editorial about the Open Source guy who develops on Windows first. One interesting comment from someone mentioned that Windows is only easier to use because of the familiarity rather than inherently a better or easier OS to work with.
I'm sure there is a lot of truth to that. Windows is the most widely used OS and often the first one for many people, so there is a huge history for some people whereas Linux is still relatively young and doesn't have the penetration that Windows has. If you'd gotten your first computer with Linux, or some other OS, and spent a few years with it, perhaps you'd be just as comfortable with that one. Regardless of your skill level with computers.
That's probably true, I know that for a long time after Windows and even Windows 95 came out, I continued to do some things in DOS because it worked better for me and I was more familiar with it. I know in College I did a bunch of Unix work and it seemed strange to move to Windows after that as well. I loved working on the old SUN OS boxes and it was a bit of a shock to move. Of course I loved my Apple II as well 🙂
In the editorial I probably came off as a bit more of a Windows advocate than I meant to be. Don't get me wrong, I like Windows and it works great for me and this site. But it's a tool. I choose Windows because I've come to love SQL Server and it only runs on Windows. If it ran on Linux or Mac OSX, then I meant be looking to move to one of those, but it doesn't.
But the reality for me is that I don't care what platform I run. They're all similar and within a few weeks I'd be pretty comfortable on any of them. It just has to do the job I need it to and do it well. I don't care about the hardware so much anymore, or about how new or cool some software, framework, or whatever is. It's interesting after hours, but when I'm working, it just needs to work.
I want a computer that works as well as my telephone. Not my cell, the land version.
Steve Jones
-
IT's a tool and I just want it to work. That is exactly my thoughts. This attitude clarifies many software/hardware selection issues. Since I have had to use Microsoft products at the places of employment, I always wished that Microsoft's slogan would be, "It just works!"
Ed.
-
What about VMS?
-
Microsoft Access literally changed my life when it came out in late 1992. After trying lots of other desktop database tools, here finally was a hundred-buck solution that allowed me to "materialize" what I had learned academically about relational databases (after all, my company wasn't going to let me practice with any of their IBM 3090s, were they?)
After a few hundred hours of working with Access in 1993, what do you know, I started to become sort of an expert in it - and later became the self-proclaimed Microsoft Access Poster Child of Central Maryland. I soon graduated from using Macros to writing VBA (then called Access Basic) code and was able to create progressively more sophisticated applications.
Over the next few years as an analyst at a nuclear power plant, Microsoft Access enabled me to become of hero to many secretaries, engineers, technicians, trainers, and document specialists, using it to solve their business problems and generally make life easier for them.
Leaving the utility in 1998, I joined a small consulting firm and since then, have made my living using VB, SQL Server, ASP, etc. - in other words, feeding at the Microsoft trough.
While generally a good thing, this has led me to over-identify and become to emotionally dependent on Microsoft. Just the opposite of the "It's a Tool" philosophy.
When I hear some Oracle Guy badmouthing SQL Server, it's as if he's insulting my children.
I think there is only one way out of this dilemma for me, and that is to start a 12-step program...
"Hi, my name is Steve, and I'm a Microsoft Co-Dependent"
<answering murmers of "Hi, Steve!" from the group>
Who will join me??
... and what do we call it??
-
"Hi, my name is Steve, and I'm a Microsoft Co-Dependent"
<answering murmers of "Hi, Steve!" from the group>
Who will join me??
... and what do we call it??"
I have no clue as what we should call it but
A rose by any other name smells a sweet.
or for those who hate M$
A pile of manure by any other name sell the same.
-
Windo-holics Anonymous?
You could serve Mountain Dew at the support group meetings instead of coffee.
My hovercraft is full of eels.
-
Would all the meetings be done in NetMeeting????
-
Steve,
The fact that you're talking about other OS'es is great, in my opinion. If you believe in capitalism at all, then OS competition can only be considered good for the consumers. IE: you don't have to use Linux to benefit from it.
As an aside...second to competition, interoperability is key. For example, my MS SQL Server should interoperate with my Linux email server (and does). As long as things interoperate I can always choose the "best" tool for the job.
But if using a specific vendors product means you must use only their products, then you are SOL. Although MS has never been OPENLY anti-interoperable, they haven't considered it that important in the past. Now they are openly for it. Again, you don't have to use Open Source to benefit from it!
Signature is NULL
-
I guess I'd argue that MS is subtlely been anti-open with their products, but that's me.
I think you should use the platform that works best and if it claims to be standards compliant, it should work with other standards products. I think MS is bending on this more and more as they try to prevent defections away. Just as many email clients are starting to work with Exchange because they realize it isn't going away.
-
True true; vendors "extending" standards can be nice, but it has a nasty flip side when you're trying to migrate code. I can think of quite a bit of my code that would need to be re-written in moved to another DBMS. Of course, these extensions are one of the reason's I use MS SQL in the first place. It's a strange dichotomy, that's for sure.
Signature is NULL
-
Does anyone get the feeling it all comes down to what is compatible or importable with or into SQL. Converting any data type to any other data type, which is fundimentally what we do here(in the IT world), is the real power behind sql server.
When I have those moments of clarity I see how SQL could be the 'save as' function or almost universal solvent to data to data types.
Why cant the data be file format info....say eps to pdf or wav to mp3....
All us SQLER's need the formula's and we make DTS/ESP/whatever for everything.
And when I think about that raw power behind SQL SERVER and potential it makes me want to stand up and say proudly "I"m Edward W. Stanley, guardian of the known universe and SQL SERVER codependent"
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply