Re: why>?

dbahooker@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote...
a) if you keep your data in different databae; i could give a rats ass.
we can use ODBC for anything we need.

So no SQL Server but DB2. And what OLAP facilities there are are
provided by Essbase. And that configuration still allows for full use
of ADP and OLAP just as you'd use them with SQL Server? I honestly
don't know.

b) when you sit around and wonder 'what if people dont have permissions
to write to sql'
i just think that you miss the point.

Do you know what NTFS is?

NTFS is going to be replaced by.. uh.. get this-- SQL Server
this is called 'WinFS' and it has been in the works for 15 years in
redmond.

And it'll still depend on who gets permissions/rights to what, but good
ol' Microsoft OS's will likely default to everyone has unlimited
permissions/rights.

Database as file system ain't new. It was one of the key features of
BeOS.

it has previously been called 'Cairo'

I think you mean Longhorn. Cairo became Windows 2000, which predated
talk of WinFS by years.

On your desktop-- you'll be running SQL Server behind the scenes.
this means that you can toss around sql server databases just like
they're documents.

Yup, database as storage subsystem. And hierarchical organization using
parent fields in the WinFS database. In case you can't tell, I'm not
sold on the benefits of WinFS.

it isn't risky to allow end users to create databases. create tables;
create views and sprocs.
....

Maybe not, but most IT shops give most users minimal (read only) if any
access to company databases. You may really, really believe it should
be otherwise, but all your wishing means squat.

WinFS-- when it ever shows up-- it SHOULD **SHOULD** allow all end
users to have their own playground for SQL Server.
....

You're confusing database as storage subsystem for WinFS with a DBMS
with which users can create tables, views, forms, reports, etc. WinFS
is more likely to be a database runtime, like Access runtime, that
provides database functionality for packaged systems (in the case of
WinFS, the OS's file system), but it's unlikely to provide users the
ability to create their own databases. I could be wrong.

you go to open the MDF 'file' and you've got a SQL Server database;
just as if it were a document.

MDF? That's SQL Server's database file format? How does one create MDF
files if one uses Oracle, DB2 or mySQL?

but even today-- in more rational terms-- i reccomend that every person
in the world have a SQL Server 2005 Express or MSDE installed on their
desktop.
....

You need to convince IT departments. Good luck!

I'm just blown away-- the free enterprise-level database offerings..
IBM and Oracle finally woke up to the reality that MS was kicking their
ass in the db market..
....

The really big databases still run on mainframes, e.g., banks with
millions of transactions per week if not per day. And trying to find
DBMS market share information on the web isn't easy. But if Microsoft
were so successful with SQL Server, how can Oracle have such a high
market capitalization. Another case of Aaron is right and the rest of
humanity wrong?

Oracle won't ever be a threat to Microsoft because Oracle is a
one-trick pony.
they don't have an office suite.
....

They don't need one apparently.

I just dont' like the idea of having mixed environments... having 3 or
4 different flavors of databases-- it's not the most efficient way to
do things.
....

That's likely true. However, companies with decades' worth of mainframe
data and serviceable mainframe systems aren't going to drop them just
for the heck of it. There will be heterogenous environments as long as
there's heterogenous hardware.

but the bottom line is that excel is inherently a single-user
interface; a single-user database.

Single-user interface? Correct. Single-user database? Nope. It's not a
database. It could be misused as a database. So could Word. You keep
trying to force-fit it into an inappropriate category, making it seem
like you can't understand anything that isn't a database - probably an
accurate assessment of your 'thought' process.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MS Access DAO -> ADO.NET Migration
    ... William Vaughn ... Microsoft MVP ... Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server ... My migration app works building a SSCE database file with imported data ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)
  • Re: Cluster will not fail over.
    ... > As far as the TCP/IP issue goes, you had to rebuild the cluster and were ... > able to restore the master database. ... > a cluster installation you'll have to revisit. ... >> This worked bringing up the sql server in minimal mode. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Uploaded File Storage - Database vs File System
    ... Yes, although WinFS has been repeatedly delayed since I wrote that article, ... it remains the holy grail for which Microsoft strives. ... Clearly Microsoft sees SQL Server as the future of all file storage, ... > Only from the database. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: Word 2003/Access2000/SQLSVR
    ... SQL server being where the data is held and this is accessed through a MS ... entire database and that may be say a record for Berkshire. ... "Peter Jamieson" wrote: ... replaced with the first record on the table in use. ...
    (microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields)
  • Re: MS Access DAO -> ADO.NET Migration
    ... full SQL Server and I see the logic you explained in a multi user ... allow two users to access the same database file Read/Write at any given ... The book was a pleasure to read after the gibberish that Microsoft 'puts ... Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)