NRA spent £18,000 on armoury software after theft

[Mr_Logic]

Oh I really can't be arsed with this. As an Infrastructure Manager, I have to balance the joys of open source with the pitfalls. if I have (a) someone with good skills in a product or (b) a support contract with a provider I trust, it makes the choice a very different one.

It's never been about which is a better DB, it's always about which is a better fit. I made some guesses about what the NRA's IT looks like - i.e. very basic and very Windows, and then concluded that in that environment MS SQL will be easier to maintain. And I stand by that, if my guesses are right.

If they have a LAMP guy sat there, then I'd be saying MYSQL! It is not a one-size-fits-all, and DBs are not simple if you haven't been in the business for 18 years.

In the same way that I wouldn't recommend a network solution based on OSPF and BGP routing with HSRP / VRRP and multiple gateways to an organisation which just about understands what an IP address is. It's horses for courses!

[HALODIN]

The point is it doesn't need maintaining and it's free, which is why it's the world's second most popular database. There are no pitfalls, it's bloody bullet proof and given the NRA isn't the richest organisation in the world, free becomes quite a good fit. When this forum has a DBA then you might have a point.

[Mr_Logic]

is the NRA after forum software?

[HALODIN]

You don't like admitting you're wrong do you...

[TattooedGun]

Okay, I'll bite.

As another DBA and Developer I can see both sides of your coins here. I use both, but my bread and butter is MS SQL. But as Halodin noted, there are hundreds of popular platforms that use MySQL without any bother whatsoever, and essentially, if you're buying a product such as asset tracking, you don't need to know about the scaffolding that holds it up, you just need to know how to work the GUI.

If this were my company providing the solution, making the same assumption as Mr Logic, we'd probably suggest that the NRA run SQL Server on the presumed SBS server that runs the rest of the business. However, it's a big assumption to make.

I used to run MySQL systems when I was a lot younger getting into DB's and Open source stuff, and whilst it will run on windows boxes, it's much more suited to Unix boxes. Which comes with it's own host of issues if you're a windows guy, so depends on the level of service and support they are getting from the provider. at the end of the day end users are not required to know and understand databases beyond what they're presented with at the GUI level, so it's an irrelevant conversation.

As a company the only reason we develop in MS as opposed to My, is because of the confidence hving the Microsoft Brand Name behind it gives the customer, as opposed to suggesting they use something that's free to all on the web and open source (even the term Open Source gives my boss the heebie jeebies). Both are sufficient for most jobs people can throw at them...

Can we give it a rest now...? :)

[Mr_Logic]

You don't like admitting you're wrong do you...

[TattooedGun]

You guys do realise how silly you look waving those tiny pink things about on the forum, right...?

[Demonic69]

2 DBAs walked into a bar, they were both wrong

[HALODIN]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

You don't like admitting you're wrong do you...

[HALODIN]

If you've already paid for SQL because you bought SBS then yes, you may as well use it. The title of this thread centres around cost, but it's morphed in to an issue of reliability and then accessible skill sets, neither of which are credible for the reasons mentioned.

If this were my company providing the solution, making the same assumption as Mr Logic, we'd probably suggest that the NRA run SQL Server on
the presumed SBS server that runs the rest of the business.