I was going to recommend PostgeSQL, but it sounds like his OS environment is
Windows. In which case, I wouldn't recommend PostgreSQL at all, having tried
to install PostgreSQL on NT in the past myself.
You are correct, however, in asserting that PostgreSQL probably has most of
what he is looking for. PostgreSQL is far more ANSI compliant than MySQL
and has many of the advanced features traditionally associated with a RDBMS.
Benjamin S. Rogers
Web Developer, c4.net
Voice: (508) 240-0051
Fax: (508) 240-0057
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 9:43 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: M$ licensing has me at wits end
PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/index.html
It will probably have just about every feature you're looking for.
What features are you looking for?
Here's an interesting article of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL:
http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000705.php3?page=1
You won't see any comparisons or benchmarks with SQL Server or Oracle,
as the EULA's for SQL Server and Oracle prevent you from doing this.
Arden Weiss wrote:
>
> So -- even the M$ sales and licensing staff at their call centers gave me
> identical "wrong" information when I posed the explicit question about
> using Cold Fusion to access SQL Server backend -- they both said
> one-license, because Cold Fusion was the "user" whereas the statement
> extracted from the licensing statement you provided below states:
>
> .... "Hardware or software that reduces the number of Devices directly
> accessing or using the Server Software does not reduce the number of
> required CALs. The number you need is based on the number of distinct
> inputs to the hardware or software 'front end.'"
>
> Otherwise -- 25 users simutaneously hitting Cold Fusion -- 25 CALS -- or
> the per CPU licesing option (on the box on which SQL Server is installed I
> assume).
>
> Sounds like M$ is trying its best to motivate folks like us to find the
> best "alternative" solution -- especially when their product has gotten to
> the point where it may be an "overkill" for the majority of our Cold
Fusion
> applications.
>
> In that vein -- what is the "best cheaper alternative" to SQL Server?
>
> ^
> / \__
> ( @\___
> / O
> / (_____/
> /_____/
> Whoof...
> 410-757-3487
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Aylor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 2:42 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: M$ licensing has me at wits end
>
> Full Product at Estimated Retail Price
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/productinfo/pricing.htm
>
> SQL Server 2000Enterprise EditionStandard EditionDeveloper Edition
>
> Processor Licensing $19,999 US per processor$4,999 US per processor
>
> SQL Server Processor Licensing Clarification
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/productinfo/multiplexing.htm
>
> With the recent introduction of Processor Licensing for the Microsoft?
..NET
> Enterprise Servers, some independent software vendors (ISVs) have raised
> questions as to the proper way to license SQL Server when using it as part
> of the ISV's software application. This has particularly been an issue for
> vendors of system management tools and their customers, who have requested
> a
> more simplified licensing solution tailored for their specific needs.
> Microsoft SQL Server and System Management Tools
> As is true for all Microsoft products, SQL Server use is defined in the
> End-User Licensing Agreement (EULA) that accompanies all editions of SQL
> Server 2000 (or any previous version). There are two ways to license SQL
> Server 2000:
> Processor License
> Server and Client Access Licenses (CALs)
> The Server and CAL model is described in the EULA as follows: "SQL Server
> 2000 Client Access License ('CAL') Requirements. CALs that you acquire may
> only be used in conjunction with your Server Software. You must acquire a
> separate CAL for each device that.accesses or otherwise utilizes the
> services of the Server Software."
> Additionally, there is specific language that attempts to clarify the use
> of
> applications that are installed between the end user and the SQL Server:
> "'Multiplexing.' Hardware or software that reduces the number of Devices
> directly accessing or using the Server Software does not reduce the number
> of required CALs. The number you need is based on the number of distinct
> inputs to the hardware or software 'front end.'"
> Despite this language, our ISV partners have been unclear as to exactly
how
> many CALs are needed when using system management tools from vendors such
> as
> Computer Associates, BMC, NetIQ, Intel, HP (OpenView) and Microsoft
> (Systems
> Management Server).
> Recommended Procedure-Processor License
> Microsoft has implemented a processor-based licensing model to address the
> special needs of the ISV community and to simplify the licensing model.
> Under this new model, a customer acquires a Processor License for each
> processor running their server software.
> A Processor License includes access for an unlimited number of devices to
> connect from either inside the corporate LAN or WAN or outside the
> firewall.
> Customers do not need to purchase additional Server licenses or CALs. The
> Processor License is all they need.
> Based on a review of system management tool vendors and their products,
> Microsoft will communicate that the appropriate licensing method for these
> vendors is Processor Licensing.
> All system management tool vendors should communicate to their customers,
> field account managers, inside sales departments, and resellers that the
> appropriate licensing method for Microsoft SQL Server 2000 when used in
> conjunction with their product is Processor Licensing. Microsoft will be
> communicating the same message to their field account managers and
> resellers
> as well.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
