News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why SQL server was never ported to Unix. Parent comment

Re:Why SQL server was never ported to Unix by andreadallera on Sunday January 15, 2012 @09:29AM (#3467196)
At least in my community, when you talk about "sql server" it's obvious that you're talking about MS SQL Server. In the same way, postgreSQL is "postgres" and Oracle Database is just "oracle".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why SQL server was never ported to Unix by frou_dh on Sunday January 15, 2012 @09:37AM (#3467211)
That community being people who already know about the brand. I say it every day at work, too, but the OP still has a valid point for public discussion.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why SQL server was never ported to Unix by dextorious on Sunday January 15, 2012 @10:18AM (#3467293)
No, he has not. "sql server" is just the product's name, it's not a generic category of servers.

We call the generic category "SQL Server" belongs to: database servers, or relational database servers.

No one uses "sql server" for something besides naming that specific MS product.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why SQL server was never ported to Unix by frou_dh on Sunday January 15, 2012 @10:48AM (#3467359)
Fair enough. I still think it's hard to say how confusing it is to those not familiar with the brand.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why SQL server was never ported to Unix by Confusion on Monday January 16, 2012 @04:14AM (#3469989)
I don't know about your culture, but I've never heard anyone use 'sql server' when they meant 'the database server'. You just don't call it that. I also think it's a pretty dumb product name. You might as well call a web server 'html server'.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why SQL server was never ported to Unix by Sapient on Sunday January 15, 2012 @01:26PM (#3467797)
People not familiar is Microsoft are probably not taking part in a discussion on HackerNews, let alone a discussion of why their SQL Server product was not ported to *nix.
[ Parent | on HN ]