Jump to content

Talk:History of Microsoft SQL Server

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Microsoft SQL Server. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis

[edit]

What is this sentence supposed to mean? It switches tense and meaning halfway through with a run-on clause *and* a parenthetical!

On June 12, 1988, Microsoft joined Ashton-Tate was fighting for their desktop product dBASE while Sybase created a variant of Sybase SQL Server for IBM OS/2 (then developed jointly with Microsoft), which was released the following year.

AnotherHowie (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Code Names

[edit]

Perhaps we need a separate section on code names. Or is it too trivial? Two contentious code names are Hekaton and Helsinki. Although they do not directly map to a specific SQL Server release, they refer to the largest feature waiting to get integrated into vNext, and typically were referred to by that name, especially in early product life-cycle. Another code name was Acadia which was the version after SQL 2003 (which slipped to 2005). Paul.wehland (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the codenames today with the right ones :) Hekaton indeed wasn't the codename for SQL2014. That's a myth. Internally that release was always known as SQL14. SQL15 became SQL16, and then Helsinki hit the radar. However unlike Hekaton, Helsinki referred to the overall release, not just SQL Server on Linux. Argenis (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2019 (PST)

Genesis

[edit]

Having worked at Ashton Tate in the SQL group at that time, my memory is that the only people at Ashton Tate that had anything to do with SQL Server was the marketing department - in an aborted Ashton Tate branding by Microsoft of SQL Server on OS2. We had nothing to do with it. It was all Sybase. I can't get to the reference listed for this - Backup & Recovery: Inexpensive Backup Solutions for Open Systems - but I can't see why it would be a good reference for this. Dancingsnails (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reference (accessible in Google Books) says: "SQL Server originated in 1989 as a joint project between Microsoft, Sybase, and Ashton-Tate. It was essentially an OS/2 port of Sybase's SQL Server on Unix. SQL Server 4.2, the first version on Windows, shipped in 1992." The disks bear a copyright notice of Ashton-Tate, there is a commercial with Ed Esber, so Ashton Tate was definitively involved (but I cannot say how much was their technical contribution). Razvan Socol (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

interoperability

[edit]

Looking for information on interoperability with earlier versions. This may ??? or may not ??? depend on which license you have ??? And there seems to be a strange break around 2008 ??? And, unfortunately, we are now into the period where it is very difficult to find out information about subjects like interoperability between 2005 and 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Infamous Wiki editors have recently removed the most complete list of SQL Server builds, citing WP:ELNO with no further explanation. The external link: https://sqlserverbuilds.blogspot.com/

I assume they mean WP:ELNO #11 regarding Blog, but this is a collection of SQL Server builds, and not a blog. Even Wikipedia defines a Blog as "informal diary-style text entries (posts)". This External Link is not an informal diary-style text entertes. It is the most complete list of SQL Server version history on the web. Each entry in the collection is fully sources with a link back to Microsoft where one can download the specific build. Just because it is hosted on Blogspot.com, does not make it comply with Wikipedia's definition of a Blog. In fact, Blogspot does not even make a mention in WP's definition, nor is is listed in Comparison of free blog hosting services. WP:ELYES #3 applies here, and should take precedence over WP:ELNO. Essentially what we have is a well-chosen link to a directory of websites. Therefore WP:ELMAYBE #3 also applies here. Paul.wehland (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ELNO point 11 is about the self published nature of the site, not about the blog format. This is clearly someone's self published site. - MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELNO #11 makes no reference to any self-published nature. Regardless, it is not self-published. I also see you did not dispute WP:ELYES #3. Therefore, I will go ahead and add the most complete list of SQL Server builds, unless you have another list which is more complete. Paul.wehland (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELYES would only apply if this weren't someone's personal site. - MrOllie (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELYES #3 exact text makes no exclusion regarding "someone's personal site". #3's exact text as of 13-Sept-2020 is "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." This site does indeed contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to this topic, and it cannot be included into the article because of the amount of detail. The detail list all builds of SQL Server's History, the exact topic of this article. The article only lists major milestones, and some service packs. It does not list each and every build, that amount would be too much detail and belongs in an external link. Exactly the situation that WP:ELYES #3 calls for. Paul.wehland (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELYES #3 cannot be taken in isolation, it does not override every other concern in the guideline. - MrOllie (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So far we have discussed WP:ELYES #3 which you cannot deny that this External Link complies with. This External Link also does not violate WP:ELNO #11 for the reasons we agree upon listed above. WP:ELMAYBE #3 also applies here, we agree on that point, correct? What are your other specific concerns beside these? Paul.wehland (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't remotely agree. It violates WP:ELNO. ELMAYBE 3 is for webdirectories, such as the late DMOZ. This is obviously not a web directory. Is this your site? - MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so we agree on WP:ELYES #3. Which number on WP:ELNO do you think it violates? Paul.wehland (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to continue to answer your questions, but not if you ignore mine. - MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Extended Link in question, that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues or amount of detail, does not belong to me. It is not my site. Paul.wehland (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering. This should not be linked per WP:ELNO point 11 - this is someone's self-published personal site. I also don't agree that the link is necessarily accurate. The whole problem with self published material is that it hasn't been fact checked by anyone, so we have no guarantee of accuracy. - MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This EL does not appear to be a Personal site, as it does not "contain content of a personal nature" or as "a space for personal expression". The content pertains directly to the build version of SQL Server, not a personal nature. Each entry in the External Like is sourced, and linked back to the Microsoft site where one can download that particular "supported" build. (Obviously you cannot download 15+ year-old builds.) Given the detail of this External Link, accuracy, and the speed at which it is updated it is almost certainly maintained by some script/bot automation, and not a human maintaining this list. Is there a particular inaccuracy that you found on this EL list which makes you question the accuracy of the entire link? Paul.wehland (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation doesn't match with the way the guideline is usually interpreted. It's a personal site because one person wrote it and put it up. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an interpretation, it is the definition of a Personal site as defined by Wikipedia. We are using Wikipedia's rules and definitions here. Please read the definition of Personal site, no where does it define a personal site as your definition of "It's a personal site because one person wrote it and put it up." The guidelines you have presented is WP:ELNO point 11. Since the EL is not a Blog by Wikipedia's definition, nor is it a Personal site as per Wikipedia's definition, nor is it a Fansite by Wikipedia's definition. Therefore, WP:ELNO point 11 does not apply to this EL. Paul.wehland (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not necessarily follow the definitions given in mainspace articles - if they did, we'd have to control edits there as tightly as we do the policy pages, which is obviously not the case. - MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we follow the policies, guidelines and definitions linked to said policies and guidelines, then the EL is in compliance with WP:ELNO point 11. Or, if we do as you wrote above and choose to not necessarily follow the policies, guidelines and definitions, then all bets are off, and it doesn't even matter if the EL is in compliance with #11, or #1 - #10 any of the other points. Because in that case it doesn't matter. So which will it be? Follow the policies, guideline, and definitions? Or choose to not "necessarily" follow the policies, guidelines, and definitions? Either choice leads to the same conclusion; that the EL is valid. Paul.wehland (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not remotely what I said above. - MrOllie (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes, implemented as a procedure or protocol. We have principals and protocols at WP:POLICY. What you describe of: "not necessarily follow the definitions given in mainspace articles", does not achieve that. What you describe is opinion, not policy. The WP:ELNO #11 policy is clear and references definitions that have been maintained since 2005-10-18 and has more than 770 edits [1]. In these 15 years, there has been plenty of time and re-work to define a personal web page. I do not see anywhere your definition of a person web page as "[a] person wrote it and put it up." If I have missed it, please point it out to me. If that was indeed the definition, then all non-automated websites would be a personal website. I think for too long you have operated under a Logical Fallacy while removing edit after edit across Wikipedia. Instead of trying to improve Wikipedia, you engage in edit warring and vandalism because of your logical fallacy(s). I challenge you to try to improve Wikipedia, not through constant deletion of links, but rather through templates, so that other editors can fill in the blanks. Do you accept the challenge to improve wikipedia though WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.wehland (talk • contribs)
Again, I do not agree that this link meets the standard given in WP:ELYES. Kindly do not lie about my opinions again as you just did in the article. Given your motivated reasoning and consistent misreading of my comments, I am starting to get the feeling that talk with you is futile - but make no mistake, there is no consensus to include this link on this article. Do not add it again, and do not claim that I support your additions of it. - MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to request a third editor come to break the logjam. - MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got here from WP:3O; this whole thing seems a little strange to me. I don't get the point of talking about all the implications of the policy in a general sense, when the actual link is right in front of our noses and we can just click on it to see what it is. Policies against linking to certain types of external websites are, as far as I can tell, based on the observation that tons of uninformative and irrelevant stuff tends to pile up if it's not kept under control. That's what makes it spam. I've looked at the link, and while I don't work with Microsoft's SQL Server specifically, I do work with a lot of software where a list like this would be extremely helpful. It's not like the site is even trying to sell you anything -- I guess the presence of ads means that the owner of the blog is getting half a cent whenever someone goes to the link without adblock on, but honestly, I think that anyone who clicks that link expecting a list of all Microsoft SQL Server lists is going to get exactly what they wanted. It's hardly taking advantage of anyone, and it's providing information that's extremely relevant to the subject of the article (and wouldn't be proper to include in the article). It's hard to understand what the problem is. { } 23:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


{|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;" | Response to third opinion request: |- |style="padding-left:0.6cm"|While a list of builds seems useful, the link fails WP:ELNO-11 being a blog, and possibly criteria 3 as well (sqlserverbuilds.com/ has a security error when accessing, on the blogspot link I got messages on a social media network tracking me). In keeping with ELNO this link should be removed, but a better link with similar information could be useful Astral Leap (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC) |}[reply]

I loaded it with adblock on and adblock off (Firefox on Debian) -- there are ads on it but I don't think there's anything beyond that. If carrying advertisements qualifies something to be WP:ELNO, I think we might have a bigger problem, to wit: http://nytimes.com might need to go on the blacklist. As for ELNO11, I'm not sure what is supposed to make it a blog, other than the fact that it's a webpage hosted on blogspot, which isn't covered by any perennial sources list as far as I know. I think that restrictions on external links make a lot of sense vis-a-vis potentially introducing bias into many subjects that articles get written about, but version numbers and packages for database software? Is there any possible way that this could be biased? It's either correct or it isn't. (And if a respected, notable SQL expert wrote a curl script to scrape this page every day and FTP upload it to a prestigious website that wasn't on blogspot, would the information become more trustworthy?) { } 20:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacob Gotts: I think ELNO-11:

Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

is clear on precluding this link, unless an argument is made for the author being a "recognized authority". Maybe there should be an exception to the guidelines, but that is a discussion for the guideline itself.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC) strike sock[reply]
While the site does have "blog" in the URL, it's not stuctured like a blog. The articles are not chronological and the existing pages keep being updated rather than new posts when new versions are released, so I'm not conviced that ELNO 11 applies to the site. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for ELNO 11 is not the format the information is presented in, but its self published and unverified nature. I think that does apply here. - MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After 4 months of discussion, it appears that the consensus is 2:1 to keep the external link. (For: WOSlinker, User:Jacob_Gotts. Against: Astral Leap ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.wehland (talk • contribs)

Consensus is not voting. - MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Personal_web_page

Express Editions

[edit]

Should the page be updated to include references to "Express" versions? Or is it enough to safely assume that each version has it's corresponding "Express" edition?


 

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Microsoft_SQL_Server&oldid=1202732499"