Yeah, I was figuring he could save another thousand $'s or so, and run
Linux or BSD. The cygwin thing is a bit rough.
"Benjamin S. Rogers" wrote:
>
> I was going to recommend PostgeSQL, but it sounds like his OS environment is
> Windows. In which case, I wouldn't recommend PostgreSQL at all, having tried
> to install PostgreSQL on NT in the past myself.
>
> You are correct, however, in asserting that PostgreSQL probably has most of
> what he is looking for. PostgreSQL is far more ANSI compliant than MySQL
> and has many of the advanced features traditionally associated with a RDBMS.
>
> Benjamin S. Rogers
> Web Developer, c4.net
> Voice: (508) 240-0051
> Fax: (508) 240-0057
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 9:43 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: M$ 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/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
