Linux file system hierarchy
-
@tonyshowoff said:
I only say "SQL Server" in the context of Microsoft if that's a part of the discussion, otherwise I do clarify MSSQL or Microsoft SQL Server. I do see people say "SQL Server" as if it's a definable product like Windows, when there are many, many servers which allow SQL. And really Sybase also calls theirs that too, IIRC, I may be wrong about that, it's been nearly 15 years.
In print the capitalization allows you to say simply SQL Server to mean the Microsoft product of that name rather than a generic server that uses SQL which would be a SQL server. Capitalized it is always Microsoft, not capitalized it is always generic. Just like the space does with XenServer. XenServer is a full packaged product based on Xen and CentOS. A Xen server (with a space) is any server built on Xen technology including ones from Ubuntu, Oracle and Suse. XenServer is a Xen server, but so are many other things. MS SQL Server, MySQL, SQLite are all SQL servers.
I normally say "M-S SQL Server" in speech to be clear.
Once upon a time (pre 1997, I think) MS SQL Server and Sybase were the same product. They split at some point. For a long time, MS SQL Server was just Sybase repackaged. To the best of my knowledge, Sybase has not had a product called "SQL Server" for decades. They make things like ASE now.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Once upon a time (pre 1997, I think) MS SQL Server and Sybase were the same product. They split at some point. For a long time, MS SQL Server was just Sybase repackaged. To the best of my knowledge, Sybase has not had a product called "SQL Server" for decades. They make things like ASE now.
Shows you when the last time I messed around with that
Same company I worked for switched from Sybase, flat files, and some other weird stuff inherited from some acquisitions to Oracle, I guess for a desire to spend even more money on licenses 
-
@tonyshowoff said:
So, perhaps there's a large gap between the European communities, hacker communities, and other corporate communities like with IBM. I'm still curious about any mention of pronunciation or non-abbreviated meaning any old manuals, especially standard setting/referencing ones may have if you know of any, but they're old manuals, and I haven't met many people aside from me that cares to read obsolete material.
IBM had it in the material for the AIX certs circa 2000. So that material almost had to be from 1999 or before, it would have been hard to have produced it more recently than that. Pronunciations for "etc" and "usr" were drilled into us. But it was less corporate and more "UNIX", AIX back then was very, very mainstream and one of the dominant players (this was before the explosion in Linux adoption) and vendors like IBM and Sun calling it "etsee" made for the majority of the industry then.
Since Sun's team and AT&T's Bell Labs team sat together and worked together, I'd be surprised if "etsee" wasn't a direct trickle down from AT&T themselves.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
SQL the language is pronounced "ess cue ell" and is owned and defined by IBM and several standards bodies.
A quick googling says the ISO standard pronounces it "es queue el", although I can't find any original sources. I've always pronounced it (the language) like that, and the products according to how the vendor pronounces them (ie MS sequal server, MyS-Q-L). There seems to be enough ambiguity on the official pronunciation to mean that both are valid.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@scottalanmiller Well, whatever happens, I'm just glad I'm not one of those gauche people who says "My SEQUEL", curiously I've even heard big-time MySQL people say this, it just sounds weird though.
@scottalanmiller said:
I know, me too. It always makes me question how much experience they really have if they aren't even aware of the product's name! Even casual users would, one would hope, take the time to ask how it is pronounced. That's very basic. It sounds weird and grating to hear it the wrong way too.
I completely disagree with this.
I know exactly how it is pronounced, yet I never say it that way because it is clunky. Very rarely does anyone pronounce the individual letters of ANY acronym when they can be spoken in a more fluid method.
In this case the hard Q is the killer sound that makes it not flow right.
I cannot stand anal people that go off on "correct" when the smoothed pronunciation is a completely accepted standard.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I know, me too. It always makes me question how much experience they really have if they aren't even aware of the product's name!
As an aside, this makes you sound like a condescending ass. You are assuming someones skill level based on pronunciation.
-
Most of my knowledge comes from the written word (books and forums) rather than the spoken word (classroom training and meeting other IT people) so I don't always get to hear the correct pronounciation.
It was only last week that I learnt FSMO is pronounced Fizz-Mo, I'd have just pronounced it F-S-M-O (and suffered the wrath of @scottalanmiller).
I also pronounce Porche with a silent 'e', even though I know it's wrong, because I think the correct pronunciation sounds a bit crap.
Sequal, S-Q-L - really, who cares?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I also pronounce Porche with a silent 'e', even though I know it's wrong, because I think the correct pronunciation sounds a bit crap.
As a German speaker from a very young age, the silent "e" that I (don't) hear from Americans and some English is weird sounding to me, it's simply "Porsha", but I get why it's such a cultural norm, because English spelling is retarded, most languages don't have silent letters or spelling bees, because things are mostly spelled closer to pronunciation than "just because," and more confusing is when people defend the bizarre spelling as a feature which makes English unique, instead of the large vocabulary which is actually what makes English unique, and vocabulary doesn't care how it's spelled, but that's way off topic.
Anyway, I've had similar issue over the years with initialisms and acronyms, FSMO was one, and years ago so was GUI, gif, and a billion others I can't think of but managed to get way wrong for years; you never get the chance to really know how they should be pronounced unless speaking in person or someone happens to be having a conversation like this one. If nothing else, mispronunciation of common acronyms may show more of a lack of AFK-contact with other computer people, rather than lack of knowledge.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
because English spelling is retarded, most languages don't have silent letters or spelling bees, because things are mostly spelled closer to pronunciation than "just because,"
I love Japanese because of this. The language is completely syllabic. Everything written in Hiragana is pronounced exactly like it looks, and every Kanji has a hiragana pronunciation..
Like any language it has quirks, but pronunciation is not one of them.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
If nothing else, mispronunciation of common acronyms may show more of a lack of AFK-contact with other computer people, rather than lack of knowledge.
Quote for effect - that was awesome!
-
@tonyshowoff said:
As a German speaker from a very young age, the silent "e" that I (don't) hear from Americans and some English is weird sounding to me, it's simply "Porsha", but I get why it's such a cultural norm, because English spelling is retarded, most languages don't have silent letters or spelling bees....
I hate spelling bees as English does not have a formal or official spelling and nearly all words have optional spellings. That schools even think that spelling bees are possible shows that the teachers are not aware of the nature of the language.
-
@scottalanmiller Some are aware, but those who like the complex spelling tend to come from the point of view that memorising many spellings makes them intelligent, so a less complex spelling system would take that away from them. The astonishing part is that there is an obsession with spelling bees at all, the idea memorising a list of things makes on intelligent is just bafflingly bizarre.
Then there are those who claim that complex spelling means that it creates English's vast vocabulary, and I've seen this even in conferences related to the English language. This takes almost no effort to figure out how logically moronic this is, the idea the spelling of a word influences whether or not the word exists.
In college I went all the way to the Anglo-Saxon Studies program, primarily because the history of English was fascinating to me, because it's so unusual and complex compared to other Germanic languages. Hungarian, on the other hand, is barely any different than it was 1,000 years ago, and Hungarian needs some reforms, but compared to English, it's pretty easy, though spoken Hungarian is vastly more complex than spoken English. English is pretty easy to learn to speak, but really complex to learn to read/write. I've noticed a lot of people take pride in thinking "English is the most complex language" when it's absolutely not, it's pretty simple, though not as simple as Afrikaans or something, it's the spelling that slows people down.
My daughters learned to read and write almost all Hungarian words by the age of 5, however even now my youngest at 7 still has a lot of difficulty with spelling more complex English words.
Additionally, I hate how illogical-spelling -defenders say "the meaning is in the spelling" or "you can figure out the etymology from how it's spelled," this is 100% useless for children learning to read/write, and many times it's not even true.
I mean "island" is that related to insula? Nope, it's from "iland" and the "s" was added arbitrarily to make it "look more Latin." A lot of this crazy shit goes back to the creator of the first dictionary who had a photographic memory and thought anyone else who didn't was "a moron." He intentionally screwed up spellings. Additionally, Dutch speaking printers who didn't speak English would arbitrarily add letters to words like "ghost" and "though".
Why defend something so screwed up? Holy cow.
