Thursday, August 14, 2003

In studying to obtain the MCSD certification, I'm currently focused on Microsoft SQL Server 2000. Having obtained two difficult certifications in the past, I have found the certification process to be more of a chore than a valuable learning experience. Luckily enough, this time around, I’ve found myself enjoying the process, mainly because of a book entitled Inside Microsoft SQL Server 2000.

I don’t know why, but I really enjoy books that fill you in on the things that shouldn’t matter, but they do. Most technical manuals give you the nuts and bolts, and are often incorrect and poorly written. Not only has this book nailed many technical subjects, it has provided insights into the decisions that Microsoft made when developing the product, and most importantly, how to take advantage of those improvements instead of ignoring them as most people do.

I agree with their point that SQL Server 2000 may be too easy to use, as is exampled in the common occurrence of poorly designed, insecure, inefficient and just plain bad databases. Those that know me know that I’ve been involved with Lotus Notes development for over 10 years. I have often remarked that Lotus Notes suffers this same fate; just because it’s easy to do a couple of things does not mean that you have any idea of what best practices to use in a large and complex database.

As icing on the cake, the book describes the history of SQL Server. I found it very interesting reading of how the timelines and market pressures that Microsoft, Sybase and IBM (OS/2) were exposed to resulted in the current products of today. I wouldn’t recommend the book to everyone, but those that are making a serious study of SQL Server should have it in their library.

Wednesday, August 13, 2003

I love when technology and the law collide. It always makes for interesting reading. In this round of fun, DirecTV has decided to file a ridiculous amount of lawsuits against citizens that may have illegal used their service. That's the truly interesting part. DirecTV doesn't really have any evidence, they have just acquired sales records for companies that sell smart card readers and such devices that may be used to intercept a DirecTV signal.

What's interesting is that DirecTV is probably suing the right people; people that stole their service. The downside of that, and the completely unacceptable part of that, is that people that had actual legitimate uses for the technology that they purchased are being sued and forced to defend themselves. That is just unacceptable and completely irresponsible. I hope the courts find a way to punish DirecTV.