Advert - or Prejudice?
I'm a little disappointed in those three comments - it is possible to have different opinions about technologies without anybody being deeply corrupt. As it happens, I've been involved with databases since the late 1970's (some nine years in DBA in govt and in merchant banking) and I've got into trouble for defending DB/2 against IMS in the past - it gives me some perspective when mentioning SQL Server instead of DB/2 gets me into trouble!
FWIW, I think that DB/2 is an excellent database - you'll find that Reg Developer has talked about it fairly recently. Intersystems Cache is another good database - and we've also mentioned that too. Until now, I'd have said that SQL Server just wasn't in the same class - but SQL Server 2005 really does seem to have got some things right at last, especially in the area of its multidimensional BI analysis tools.
I might be wrong about this - I might be wrong about DB/2 and Cache too, but they are all sincerely held beliefs. I'm sorry if Microsoft does something right occasionally, but I can hardly refuse to mention it when it does, on principle! And there are plenty of articles in El Reg and Reg Developer highlighting the things Microsoft does wrong.
Finally, I am most impressed that our correspondents can design a database solution, including choosing an appropriate database, working from a half-page overview article. In my day, I'd have had to spend a little bit more time looking at the detailed user requirements.
But looking at the requirements apparently didn't help here. While the wrong database, SQL Server, was actually chosen, and was even successful in producing the published research, any one of DB/2, Sybase IQ, NCR Teradata , Informix or Cardbox - widely different (and excellent, in their way) databases - should have been chosen and could have done the job without exciting adverse comment.
Is there just a hint of prejudice against Microsoft here? Understandable, if so; some Microsoft products certainly have technical issues, and the company itself hasn't always behaved well, but we can't pretend that none of its products have worthwhile applications for all that.