Thread:

Were do we finde accurate values, more updated ones?
Guess we should measure current values and compare them later, in a few months after oracle  dbms war gets quiet.

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3462241

Regards,
Guido
--
/"\   ASCII Ribbon Campaign  .
\ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail  .
X  - NO Word docs in e-mail .
/ \ -----------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:57:27PM +0000, Guido Barosio wrote:
> Were do we finde accurate values, more updated ones?
> Guess we should measure current values and compare them later, in a few
> months after oracle  dbms war gets quiet.
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3462241

"In our survey, 90 percent of our developers work with or deployed to
Windows platforms," McKendrick explained. "Windows dominates this space,
and a database that doesn't run on Windows or doesn't run effectively in
Windows would have a fairly limited reach."

Does that strike anyone else as being *highly* skewed?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Jim C. Nasby wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:57:27PM +0000, Guido Barosio wrote:
>> Were do we finde accurate values, more updated ones?
>> Guess we should measure current values and compare them later, in a few
>> months after oracle  dbms war gets quiet.
>>
>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3462241
>
> "In our survey, 90 percent of our developers work with or deployed to
> Windows platforms," McKendrick explained. "Windows dominates this space,
> and a database that doesn't run on Windows or doesn't run effectively in
> Windows would have a fairly limited reach."
>
> Does that strike anyone else as being *highly* skewed?

Aren't most surveys, stats and benchmarks? :(  there is no such thing as
an "unbiased result" in statistics, it will always be skewed in some way
based on the person generating the stats ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:39:16PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:57:27PM +0000, Guido Barosio wrote:
> >>Were do we finde accurate values, more updated ones?
> >>Guess we should measure current values and compare them later, in a few
> >>months after oracle  dbms war gets quiet.
> >>
> >>http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3462241
> >
> >"In our survey, 90 percent of our developers work with or deployed to
> >Windows platforms," McKendrick explained. "Windows dominates this space,
> >and a database that doesn't run on Windows or doesn't run effectively in
> >Windows would have a fairly limited reach."
> >
> >Does that strike anyone else as being *highly* skewed?
>
> Aren't most surveys, stats and benchmarks? :(  there is no such thing as
> an "unbiased result" in statistics, it will always be skewed in some way
> based on the person generating the stats ...

Oh, sure, but 90% windows seems pretty blatent to me.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:57:27PM +0000, Guido Barosio wrote:
>
>> Were do we finde accurate values, more updated ones?
>> Guess we should measure current values and compare them later, in a few
>> months after oracle  dbms war gets quiet.
>>
>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3462241
>>
>
> "In our survey, 90 percent of our developers work with or deployed to
> Windows platforms," McKendrick explained. "Windows dominates this space,
> and a database that doesn't run on Windows or doesn't run effectively in
> Windows would have a fairly limited reach."
>
> Does that strike anyone else as being *highly* skewed?
>
But true? ---

Joshua D. Drake

On 2/27/06, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > "In our survey, 90 percent of our developers work with or deployed to
> > Windows platforms," McKendrick explained. "Windows dominates this space,
> > and a database that doesn't run on Windows or doesn't run effectively in
> > Windows would have a fairly limited reach."
> >
> > Does that strike anyone else as being *highly* skewed?
> >
> But true? ---

If you happen to survey a bunch of 100-500 person companies with
local, distributed IT support staff, then you will see that more than
90% of the servers in use are locally administered, and almost always
running some version of Windows. It is trivial to also point the exact
same survey to only the corporate administration groups in larger
businesses ('corporate' meaning all the servers are in datacenters
somewhere), who almost always have UNIX, OS400 and/or some other
non-windows *nix variant as the dominant server platform.

It all depends on who you ask. If I want windows-skewed results, then
I just ask the local IT folks. If I want *nix, then I ask the
corporate applications developers and consolidated system admins.

Is this consistent with everyone else's experience? Just wanting a
reality check here...

--
Mitch Pirtle
Joomla! Core Developer
Open Source Matters

> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:57:27PM +0000, Guido Barosio wrote:
> > Were do we finde accurate values, more updated ones?
> > Guess we should measure current values and compare them later, in a
> > few months after oracle  dbms war gets quiet.
> >
> > http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3462241
>
> "In our survey, 90 percent of our developers work with or
> deployed to Windows platforms," McKendrick explained.
> "Windows dominates this space, and a database that doesn't
> run on Windows or doesn't run effectively in Windows would
> have a fairly limited reach."
>
> Does that strike anyone else as being *highly* skewed?

Not really. Rather realistic, I'd say. It's a changing landscape, but
90% doesn't seem off at all to me.

With the possible exception that you don't really need to run
*efficiently*. Depending on what you mean, of course. Running as
efficient as MS Access does it certainly bad. Running as efficiently as
PostgreSQL does is definitly Ok in this case. PostgreSQL on cygwin (pre
8.0) is not OK.

//Magnus