[ape4]

It kinda bugs me that people say "SQL Server" to mean "Microsoft SQL Server". I mean, there are other sql servers.

[cstejerean]

SQL Server is a registered trademark of Microsoft at least in the US and I’m sure other jurisdictions. Using SQL Server to refer to Microsoft’s relational database product is perfectly reasonable and pretty much every will know what you mean. The generic term seems to be RDMS or some variation on that.

[chc]

Referring to a RDBMS as a "SQL Server" would probably confuse people. Besides the fact that it's already the name of a specific product, the overall genre of software doesn't even serve SQL.

[mr_overalls]

Same here. FWIW, I informally refer to it as "MS-SQL" to differentiate.

[astine]

When I do that, the less technical people I report to get it confused with MySQL which is not what I want.

[JetSpiegel]

M$-SQL would be appropriate, but it might be confused with Oracle...

[giovannibonetti]

Good to know! Can you give an example? When I google "SQL Server" it seems like most results are related to MS SQL Server

[BubRoss]

An example of other SQL servers? PostgreSQL would be one, which is what this thread is about.

[dragonwriter]

> It kinda bugs me that people say "SQL Server" to mean "Microsoft SQL Server". I mean there are other sql servers.

I don't mind that; sure, there are other RDBMS servers that support SQL as their main or exclusive language, but unless you are talking about ancient Sybase products (for which there is a very good reason for the shared branding) “SQL Server” is a clear, exclusive Microsoft product identity and not any worse of a label, say, FTP (yes, there are other file transfer protocols).

OTOH,what does bug me is when people say “SQL” to mean “Microsoft SQL Server”.

[buster]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_Server

Same as "FTP Server" doesn't mean proftpd, "HTTP Server" doesn't mean apache and "C compiler" doesn't mean gcc. SQL is a language. Server is a generic term.

Another example: I may ask my colleague the following: "Which SQL server should we use in our new project?". Does this mean, i would like to know the edition and version of the MS SQL Server or maybe (and from my point of view more likely) i am looking for PostgreSQL, MySQL or MSSQL. If i'd like to know which edition and version i should use, i'd ask "Which MS SQL Server should i use?". That's a difference.

Might be that our views differ but i can understand the parents points.

[Macha]

But httpd does mean Apache, and sh means Bourne shell.

It also helps that nobody says "The SQL server is down" when their mysql instance is down. Even when using a generic term it's "the database is down"

[pritambaral]

> ... and sh means Bourne shell.

1. Except on Android, stock Debian/Ubuntu/etc., and in the bootloader and initramfs of my embedded OS;

2. I'm guessing you actually meant 'Bourne Again Shell' instead of 'Bourne Shell'.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Eh... sh only refers to the generic specification of a bourne-family shell, usually bash or dash; almost nobody is actually using the original Bourne shell.

[taffer]

> It also helps that nobody says "The SQL server is down" when their mysql instance is down.

I've heard such sentences many times from many people.

[zaarn]

sh refers to a POSIX shell. The bourne shell (bsh) is not entirely compatible with the Bourne Against Shell (bash), and bash will switch to a compatibility mode if called as sh.

Additionally, many distros, including Ubuntu and Debian, do not use bash as their default shell. (Ubuntu/Debian use dash, Arch uses zsh, Alpine uses busybox sh)

[bigato]

In openbsd, httpd means their own webserver. In plan9, there is also a webserver called httpd.

[astine]

I find that the bigger problem for me is the number of RDBMs that use 'SQL' in the name somewhere means that non-technical people get confused between 'knowing SQL', as in knowing how to develop SQL code, and 'knowing SQL' as in knowing how to manage a particular database product (usually SQL Server). That's how I got turned into a DBA without realizing it.