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 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 ]