![Databases Databases](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/database_64.png)
![Programming Programming](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/programming_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![Microsoft Microsoft](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/microsoft_64100.png)
![IT IT](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/it_64.png)
MSSQL 2005 Finally Released 318
mnovotny writes "Computerworld reports that Microsoft is finally set to release their belated SQL Server 2005. From the article: 'Despite a two-year delay, several users who have tested the software cited the improved performance and new functionality it brings as positive developments that likely will convince them to upgrade soon.' The free version can be downloaded directly from Microsoft."
Before you release the hounds (Score:5, Insightful)
MS SQL Server Yes it is closed sources, I don't know what type of security holes they will find in it, It is defiantly bloated because it will not fit 5 1/2 single density floppy disk with enough rooms for a 2000 record table. If you already have MS SQL 2000 and in a year or so you need to upgrade it will probably be easer to go to 2005 them migrating to the others.
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah? Lucky you! I certainly have.
If you're not using an MS language, you're going to probably be connecting to it using ODBC, which is slow and often buggy.
Also, my pet peeve about it is lack of a date type (as opposed to a DateTime type). This is part of the standard, so it should be in there. Its a pain to have to constantly cast your datetime into a date every single time you use it.
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:2)
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:5, Informative)
My other pet peeve is that T-SQL is so danged orthagonal. It's not that you can't do anything you'd want to do in the language (setting aside the things that are supposed to work but don't). It's just that you have to keep going to the manual to find out what construct works in which context.
On the other hand, I think most people using relational databases aren't doing very sophisticated RDBMS stuff -- at least in the DB tier. So for those people integration with the MS toolchain is probably more useful than having capabilities they don't use work.
Re: "Not many good tools for PostGreSQL" (Score:5, Informative)
Postgresql has a great variety of tools, both OSS and commercial that work great. I've been working on an updated list of all the tools. Here are a few of the most popular admin tools:
PGadminIII
http://www.sqlmanager.net/products/postgresql/man
DBvisualizer
http://www.minq.se/products/dbvis/ [www.minq.se]
EMS Postgresql Manager
http://www.sqlmanager.net/products/postgresql/man
PHPpgadmin
http://sourceforge.net/projects/phppgadmin [sourceforge.net]
Sybase Power Designer
http://www.sybase.com/products/enterprisemodeling
ERWIN data modeller
http://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Product.asp?ID=260 [ca.com]
CASE Studio 2
http://www.casestudio.com/enu/default.aspx [casestudio.com]
Postgresql has a vibrant tool community. If you want more info on Postgresql tools see
http://techdocs.postgresql.org/v2/Guides/PostgreS
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:2)
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:3, Insightful)
While compared to .NET PHP is relatively simple
That got to be the understatement of the year. Seriously. Comparing event-based application programming (ASP.NET) to sequential HTML-generation (PHP) is something you just don't do.
Not saying PHP is crap or anything. There's stuff that takes seconds in PHP and ages in ASP.NET and vica verse. There's probably also some Java-alternatives for those who need more advanced webscripting than PHP allows for. "Right tool for the right job" as I usually say.
b
FUD (Score:2)
The Oracle license program itself requires about a day or two of study to understand. This is not the job of the end user mind you, but the consultant and/or reseller. I've actually gone through this exercise for several clients.
To be sure, you can buy a license Oracles in ways that are eye-poppingly expensive, but you don't need to. You can also license all kinds of add-ons that you don't need. But, once you get down to realistic situations with reasonable choi
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:2)
Why don't I use other tools? I don't have access to them. People are forced into using what their companies provide, and from my position I can't drive that sort of change.
For what I need, Access was good. Now some of my databases are groaning at around 1-2GB, but they work smoothly and well because I manage them carefully.
SQL Server provides a much better set of tools than Access, and it's better supported by our IT department. It's the best tool I
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:2)
Oracle costs the same as SQL server. For every product level in SQL server there is a corresponding one in Oracle with the same or greater feature set that costs the same or less. Yes there are oracle products that cost more then SQL server ones but they do things SQL server can't.
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, Oracle standard edition cost the same as SQL Server standard edition. Oracle lowered the price a while ago. Oracle Enterprise edition costs the same as SQL standard edition, feature-for-feature. However, Oracle offers far more large scale features so you could spend more if you need those features (which most users would not). A 1 processor version of SQL Server Enterprise 2005 costs $24,999.00. You can get a feature-for-feature version of Oracle for that
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:2)
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:2)
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:2)
That's probably why right before it he said is "Please take into account. Most People who choose MS SQL Server already have a windows network". He was hoping trolls like you would then skip over it, but I guess you have to bash MS anytime you can, even if a disclaimer to your point was already in the parent post.
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:2)
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:5, Informative)
Three years ago I faced a $120k charge to upgrade a four-cpu SQL Server7 server to SQL Server 2000.
Was this cheaper than oracle?
Eh, not really - first off, I could have implemented oracle on a two-way server instead of a four-way and gotten equiv performance (search engine queries). Secondly, I could probably have gotten the oracle licenses down to $20k a cpu.
Oracle now has a *free* low-end database.
These days I'm running a multi-terabyte data warehouse for hundreds of customers on db2 - and it's *far* cheaper than SQL Server. Since db2 bundles most of their top-end capabilities into even the smallest version, I could run my warehouse on the db2 express version for $1500 (total).
So yeah, sometimes sql server is the cheapest solution. But it often isn't.
And then comes the topic of vendor lock-in. With db2 or oracle if you want to move to another database later on it isn't such a big deal. I can move most of my apps between oracle, db2, postgresql, sybase, etc fairly easily. Non-standard sql behavior in mysql are a pain in the butt. And any microsoft *platform* code in mssqlserver are a pain in the butt.
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean out of the box for server 2000 pricing last time I checked with a source of mine(3 years ago)(just checked an old email) and had a quote for 16k a cpu. And street price from Microsoft at the time direct was 20k per cpu.
Hell, even the new 2005 is only 24k per proc from MS on their site, and I am sure Tech Data, or some other company could get them two you cheaper. Whoever you were dealing with was charging you double.
So either this is FUD or just a rip off vendor.
Our shop supports MS, Oracle, DB2, and postgres. And you can move freely between any of those from one to the other, no vendor lock in.
Vendor lock in is when you use specific functionality inherent to MSSQl(or db2, oracle, post) so that if you need to move from one to the other, that is the guy who built the databases fault, not the company that supplies it.
Puto
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you can't. Oracle XE [oracle.com], the free version, is restricted to 4gb of data. Not 4tb, 4 gigs.
That's not a data warehouse, that's a data convenience store.
Free 'Express' editions released (Score:5, Informative)
You can download 'web installers' I believe, but ISO images are here [microsoft.com]
Re:Free 'Express' editions released (Score:2)
Re:Free 'Express' editions released (Score:2)
Formerly "MSDE" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Free 'Express' editions released (Score:2, Interesting)
Not being a database admin, I can't comment on the advantages of MSSQL over other SQL servers, but I've heard people say that MSSQL is very resistant to data corruption caused by external factors (I guess they mean, hardware failure or filesystem corruption or the like). Can anybody confirm this?
The biggest are (for SQL) (Score:5, Informative)
2) 1 Processor usabe maximum (unlimited cores though).
3) 4GB total DB size maximum.
There are other limits too, like it can't do some enterprise things like a DB cluster, but the major ones are the size and processing limitation. So it would probably work as a web backend, but wouldn't scale without buying a bigger version.
Re:The biggest are (for SQL) (Score:2)
Honestly I don't get it. Why would somebody use a deliberately crippled piece of software when you can get uncrippled open source databases for free.
Re:The biggest are (for SQL) (Score:3, Insightful)
Biting a troll? I dunno, but here goes.
MSDE: Not really a high-end database, even though I've seen it employed as one in production systems. Nasty, nasty.
However MSDE -does- have it's merrits. For a developer, you can pretty much count on that working against a lightweight MSDE will produce the exact same results when moving your code over to the production server running MS SQL server 2000. I think that's what the parent poster might have implied.
I'd take MS SQL Server Developer or Enterprise edi
Re:Free 'Express' editions released (Score:2)
Not true (Score:2)
Re:Free 'Express' editions released (Score:2)
Re:Free 'Express' editions released (Score:5, Informative)
However, it seems as if the ISO images may not need such a product key, as this item from that link states:
If you need to install and use an Express Edition on a computer that is not connected to the Internet, you will need to create an installation CD using the CD ISO (IMG) files that are available on the Express site. The installation CD you create will then allow you to install an Express Edition on a computer that is not connected to the Internet, and that Express Edition will not require a registration key for continued usage.
Open Source making waves... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, this (as well as news of Oracle's "free/lite" version of 10g), are good news... that Open Source projects like MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL, etc are forcing the "cathedral" software shops to re-examine their ways, since they (Microsoft & others) can't rely on piracy anymore (due to impacted profits) to keep the "pipeline full" and "mindshare". It's good for the closed source developers, and ultimately it will be good for OSS developers, as OSS entries in these fields mature. Competition is good, and the developers benefit.
Re:Open Source making waves... (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't some 'new thing' that MS is doing because it's running scared of OSS.
Re:Open Source making waves... (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, expect companies like Borland to be very upset by this move. This will cut into some of their market (what's left of it), and mig
Re:Open Source making waves... (Score:2)
What do the charge for the regular version of Visual Studio? A decent amount. $50 is peanuts compared when you add in the cost of media/shipping, etc. They dropped from that tiny amount of profit to none on the lightweight version. Not a huge deal for them.
I guess in your mind they can't possibly decide to
Re:Open Source making waves... (Score:4, Insightful)
What utter nonsense.
Firstly, as the other person mentioned - the thread was explicitly about SQL Server Express Edition, which is a variation of something that Microsoft has been doing since SQL Server 7 (when the MSDE first appeared). Not to mention things like the JET engine have always been freely distributable.
Secondly, Microsoft has offered a free SDK/Platform SDK for years. This is a very comprehensive kit that can be used to develop software.
The whole focus is wrong anyways - the Express editions of Visual Studio, which have some killer limitations (e.g. complete lack of optimization), are targetted at dabblers. These dabblers would never, in a million years, try getting going with Eclipse or the like. At the most they'd warez an ISO of Visual Studio Pro.
Which brings up the next point - Microsoft has always been relatively hands off about piracy of Visual Studio. That is their tacit real "Free" version. Even Visual Studio 2005 doesn't include activation or any other anti-warez measures.
Re:Open Source making waves... (Score:2)
VS.NET Express is only free for one year [microsoft.com].
Re:Open Source making waves... (Score:4, Informative)
Wow.. more mis-information... Again... (Score:4, Informative)
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166 851&cid=13914395 [slashdot.org]
Clearly, this (as well as news of Oracle's "free/lite" version of 10g), are good news... that Open Source projects like MySQL, PHP....
MS HAS ALWAYS OFFERED A FREE DATABASE ENGINE, its no secret. SQl Server 2005 Express is just the new version of this product which has been available for years. Because of its easy transition to Sql Server its used a lot as a started Database for companies trying to sell in the SBM market. A lot of software application make use of MSDE (which is what the engine was called before Express edition)
For more information here http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/default.mspx [microsoft.com]
Now as for the Express editions being free... They are not (someone let me know if I am wrong here). They cost like 40 bucks or so, I had the beta installed on my system, once beta was over it prompted me to register/pay for it within 30 days..etc the usual MS registration.
Re:Wow.. more mis-information... Again... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wow.. more mis-information... Again... (Score:2)
Re:Free 'Express' editions released (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, if by "free" you mean "free to use for one year [microsoft.com]":
That "for the term of that license" sounds like a loophole to me. Anyone seen the licenses that these "free" versions come with? Do they have a time period written into them?
Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:5, Insightful)
The limited stored proc language that SQL server had before was actually a good thing; you could do some limited stuff in the DB. Thus, you weren't often able to give in to the tendency to stick application logic in the database tier.
And this quote pretty much says it all: Raichura said the support for Microsoft's Common Language Runtime technology via Visual Studio will let him avoid having to go to multiple developers with different specialties. "I can natively write stored procedures straight into software," he said. "This increases my resource pool because it reduces the distinction between software developers and architects."
Read: Now, I can pay people less to create a complete fucking pigsty that will perform well enough that the app will appear largely stable.
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:2)
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:2)
That said, you'll still have to make some changes to make it talk to something other than sql server, but if you've written your code with that in mind that also should be trivial.
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all about separating "logic" from the data access layer, but simple things like that are probably possible using
Passing in arrays (Score:2)
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:2)
I believe this is true for any SQL statement in
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:2)
-user defined type
-functional index
-user defined aggregate
-trigger
-complex constraint
If it's code that maintains your data integrity, and is fundamental to the meaning of the data, put it in the database. Else put in application.
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:2)
Until you want to scale and realize you can no longer just farm data logic servers, or web servers, and instead have to invest in large scale databaes clustering. Oops.
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:2)
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:2)
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, like the man says, sometimes there's other types of apps connecting to your DB, maybe not all within your control. If you're responsible for the health of the data and the system, you may not be able to trust that every developer or system is playing nice.
Say goodbye to the 80's (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore I treat the database as the "sacred resource". This almost always means that business logic is kept outside the database.
Your approach was right in the 80's when client/server was the norm. Today you should have an n-tier system and have the business logic in an application server.
You can still have lots of different applications while using centralized code. Only, now you call the application server instead of the database.
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:2)
The value of LSD (Score:2)
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:2)
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:3, Interesting)
"Stored procedures" written in C# should really be thought of in the same way as the extended procedures from SQL Server 2000. In otherwords, you probably will never use that feature, and if you do find that you need it you must really scrutinize why and the security implications of doing so. In most cases, you're better off with straight T-SQL procedures, and that hasn't changed for SQL Server 2005.
Personally, I haven't yet found a good reason to use C# stored procedures, but I'm also not using SQL Serv
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:2)
Sounds like a nightmare waiting to happen.
I should say though that this is great for MS. They charge per CPU for the database, the more they can chew up your CPU with non database related code the more likely you will add CPUs and pay the additional licenses.
I would prefer to have my business logic in a
Any ideas on UK availability? (Score:3, Interesting)
So what gives. The product is apparently out.. we want to buy it.. Microsoft have set the prices out.. so can we buy it or what?!
The favourable (p)reviews for SQL 2005 seem to be in stark contrast to those for Visual Studio 2005.. bloated, resource hungry, and bug laden.. apparently.
Re:Any ideas on UK availability? (Score:2)
Sounds like ROYAL PRINCE MR UBUKWE got into the retail software business.
Re:Any ideas on UK availability? (Score:3, Informative)
New clustering licensing (Score:3, Informative)
The catch is whether or not we want to be one of the first servers to adopt SQL 2005. New releases scare the hell out of me, but we've also had some recent downtimes that a clustered server might have helped with.
Decisions, decisions . . .
Re:New clustering licensing (Score:2)
Here is a snip from the last email I got on it:
Our goal was to have 30 customers deployed on SQL Server 2005 by the time we launched. Today, we have more than 50 customers deployed on SQL Server 2005, including Barnes & Noble, Mediterranean Shipping Company, Xerox, and others in the process of migrating or upgrading their systems. These customers rang
Cluster What? (Score:2)
So... (Score:3, Funny)
My first impression... (Score:5, Informative)
The Management Studio Interface is pretty good, although not as responsive as I would like on a 2.8 GHz P4. Thankfully stored procedures can be edited in a non-modal window (in tabs).
SQL server also comes with MSXML 6 and SQLXML4. The upgrade analysis tool is very neat.
Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Professional is much more CPU intensive than the Management Studio. They do look rather similar.
Microsoft Visual SourceSafe 2005 has an updated inteface, however many screens still look the same.
Free? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free? (Score:2)
...great artists ship. (Score:4, Funny)
SQL Server Reporting Services and Report Builder (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially, the data architect takes the OLTP or data warehouse and abstracts it via metadata into Business entities with which end users are familiar. In Business Objects, this semantic layer is called a Business Universe and in SQLServer Reporting Services it's called the Data Model. Because this semantic layer understands how the data should be put together, it writes the underlying SQL necessary to give the user the answer they want. In principle and demos, it is very slick. We'll soon see how the two stack up in reality at my place of business, as we're setting up both this week to play with.
Re:SQL Server Reporting Services and Report Builde (Score:2)
Yes, MUCH more affordable
Re:SQL Server Reporting Services and Report Builde (Score:3, Insightful)
Since most reports of this type are created by users looking for answers to simple questions, i've found that creating dashboards with great navigation & drilling between graphs, charts, and tables to
New toys (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Open Source, People (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Open Source, People (Score:2)
Re:Open Source, People (Score:2)
Feature changes from MSDE 2000 to SQL express? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/co
Has anyone out their tested out what is available in SQL express as far as job scheduling , DTS (now ETL) and replication?
Does anyone want to flame me for unashamedly using MS SQL?
As best as I can tell from their spec sheet, the following features of MSDE 2000 are not available in SQL Express:
* No job scheduler in SQL express. SQLAgent worked fine in MSDE 2000.
* Replication: MSDE for SQL could public and subscribe (as far as I understand), while SQL Express 2005 can only subscribe.
* They've changed the name of DTS to "Enterprise ETL Platform" or SSIS or something. While I haven't tested it out yet, it appears that DTS functionality is limited to basic import and export. For the really useful stuff (DTS to web services, for example) you need the pro edition.
Added:
* A user interface. MSDE 2000 basically had none. If you didn't have visual studio, or a developer's license to MSSQL, or some 3rd party administration and query tool, you basically had to use osql (command line).
* You get 4GB instead of 2GB.
Now, I have access to a few large corporate MS SQL servers, so this shouldn't really be a problem. However, large corporate servers have complex change-control processes.
Consequently, I rely on the desktop editions for all my ad-hoc stuff, development, and stuff that hasn't quite made it to production. I also run a database for a non-profit on MSDE, and was hoping to keep the replication features while moving up to SQL Express.
Re:Feature changes from MSDE 2000 to SQL express? (Score:3, Informative)
Free version? (Score:2, Funny)
I find it funny that company name products with years/dates when it is rule #2 that doing something will always take two times longer than your worst estimates
Two years late, hunh?? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's used as the eternal carrot... to keep the CTO from moving to a competetor's product that's already there and better. As long as 'real soon now' continues to inch ever closer, you can keep this up for an incredible length of time.
The mantra is: It's easier to stay with our junky product for X months than to go through the pain of migrating to their superior product. -- then, 6 months later, it's X-2 months.
If it finally comes out missing a couple of promised features (cut because 'we had to finally ship something!'), that's OK because it'll be in the next release ((due in X months).
Rinse-repeat.
Interesting? (Score:4, Funny)
meh! Meh! MEH! (Score:3, Interesting)
What problem are they trying to solve...I'll tell you what. SQL works well and is defiened by a standards committe outside their control...why don't we all do everything in vb instead. I betcha one of the reasons it took so long to get out was they couldn't make it run anywhere as fast as 2000 without tons of tweaking.
Re:meh! Meh! MEH! (Score:2)
You're overracting without reading. (Score:2)
No they are not. They have made great enhancements to T-SQL in 2005 and every message I've heard is that T-SQL is the primary language for interacting with the database. C# sprocs exist for edge cases that used to required unmanaged extended stored procedures, as well as some other small use cases such as intense data manipulation using complex logic that is not suited for T-SQL. However the vast majority (I recall a manager stating "about 90%" at PDC 2
Re:meh! Meh! MEH! (Score:2)
C# and the
Re:meh! Meh! MEH! (Score:3, Informative)
What this is aimed at is stored procedures that to complex calculation and processing, or anything where the stored proc is forced to use a cursor or a DLL call.
For set-oriented data manipulation, SQL will always be a better language, and this remains so for the majority of stored procedures. Sure, some
Re:Here's hoping (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here's hoping (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here's hoping (Score:3, Informative)
I do pay for MSDN, but that money is going to the developing tools and code I get for the subscription. Hence the DN in MSDN, Developers Network. Also I get access to any MS software released since DOS. The betas of their software is more of a "perk" if you will.
As far as "people who just want to learn the tool before it is released to the public", "just"? It's a friggen business man. If MS opened up all their programs to the public bef
Re:Here's hoping (Score:5, Insightful)
"Despite the few hiccups, I am enjoying VS 2005 and have been able to work with it productively. VS 2005 is stable and performant, and it's better to have it arrive now rather than later. The runtime is solid, and various products across Microsoft and outside also depend on it being delivered on a timely basis."
Yes, I've found a few minor hiccups in VS2005 as well. But honestly, it's nothing like MiniMSFT would have it seem. I can't speak for everyone, but VS2005 has been solid for us since RTM (we were a MS beta tester from Beta 1 through RTM), and we're very happy with its current form.
Hahaha... *sigh* (Score:5, Informative)
Here's hoping it went through more testing than VS2005 did...
Did you actually use VC2005, or did you just read a crappy blog entry and assume it fact >.<
Here's the scoop: I've used the VC2005 betas for about two months now. They work fine. No, seriously. Never once did I have a crash. Never once did it corrupt my hard drive. And never once did it kill a penguin. Guys, seerisnah.
Granted, it takes a teensy bit longer to boot than EMACS, but it has a lot of nice features. Like the oft-maligned "intellisense" - it's nice having the function/method/class prototypes at your fingertips as you fill in a function. Or the new, secure versions of strcpy(), memcpy(), and others. It can compile code for a wide variety of applications, such as:
It also supports a wide variety of CPUs:
Fairly impressive, all considering. Although I don't write multi-threaded apps, it does have some nice debugging tools for creating them, a nice GUI for those too lazy to write their own resource scripts, and a nifty-as-all-hell IDE. Contrary to popular opinion, it's stable as all hell, has more features than a nerd's Swiss Army Knife and creates fast code. Quite frankly, for those who actually program, it's a dream - and Microsoft released a beta that any of you could have download from http://msdn.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com] (The free and fully-functional Beta is closed now. What, you don't regularly check Microsoft Developer's Network here? :-D)
So... All the VC2005 bashing seems to come from a blind hatred of Microsoft (remember, Bill Gates created his empire coding from his garage, like any proper geek would) and a blind belief in anything that will bash Microsoft. If you actually use VC2005, it's wonderful.
But wait, you can! You can download the "Express Edition" free (as in beer) from here [microsoft.com]. I don't know how much the "Express Edition" differs from the full product, but if you guys are going to whine about something, at least use it first
Re:Technet and MSDN (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Technet and MSDN (Score:2)