> > If you install MS SQL server you run a network based service that > > is vulnerable to attack. If you run Sqlite you don't run any > > service and thus are invulnerable (to network service based > > infections). > > Not relevant. No reference to "network service based infections" was > made in the original post.
It seems silly to limit your arguments to things people have already thought of. The best arguments are those that tell people about points they may not have already considered. Being vulnerable to viral infection is ALWAYS a relevant consideration for any professional. > > > Yes, any executable can be infected, but that's a meaningless > statement > > since you can't have any database without executable code. > > Then saying that SQLite won't be a source of virus infections is also > meaningless, since "you can't have any [SQLite] database without > executable > code," which executable code can be infected. Let me rephrase then: The advantage of Sqlite over Sql Server is that it gives you one *less* vulnerability. Since there's no network service there's no network service vulnerability. I assume all the other methods of viral vulnerability (infected executables, sql injection attacks, etc.) are equivalent for both Sql server and Sqlite. ===== --------------------------------- "Lord Tarlington gazed upon the crazed Egyptian hieroglyphics on the walls of the ancient tomb of the petrified pharaoh, he vowed there would be no curse on him like on that other Lord, unless you count his marriage to Lady Tarlington who, when the lost treasure was found, will be dumped faster than that basket in the bulrushes." Melissa Rhodes --------------------------------- The Castles of Dereth Calendar: a tour of the art and architecture of Asheron's Call http://www.lulu.com/content/77264 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
