coapp-developers team mailing list archive

["Trevor Dennis" <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> On 5/20/2010 12:14 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Garrett
> Serack<garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >> /facepalm
> >>
> >> I think we'll select technologies based on what makes sense
> technologically. If we're writing the server part in C# anyway, SQL
> Server is quick, fast and well, cheap. (I have pull with the company
> that makes it)
> >
> > I'm not sure, but again, I think some (open source) devs don't want
> to
> > depend on proprietary tech.
> 
> Then I'm sure they'll be happy continuing to use Linux, oblivious to
> CoApp ;-)  'cause, you know, if they don't want to depend on
> proprietary
> tech, why are they on Windows?
> 
> (Side note: this is a pet peeve of mine -- you being emphatically
> against it is significantly different to you hypothesizing that there
> might be someone out there that is emphatically against it.)
> 
> 

I have nothing against SQL Server as it is a great product and I use it
every day.  I'm just raising an issue as I see it from the big company
perspective.  The ideas and intentions of management today are not always
the ideas and intentions of management tomorrow.  

Just because Garrett has pull with the company today to get us SQL Server
2008, doesn't guarantee we will get any future upgrades years down the road
(if we need them).  But maybe as Garrett puts it, that's a problem for
"Future Garret" :^)

Personally, I'm still hoping to see the SQL Server team replace their
convoluted installer to use CoApp in a few years!

Trev.