It wasn't supposed to be a gotcha, just an effort to move the discussion into interesting territory.
That said, I wouldn't call a product that diverged from Sybase SQL Server entirely in 1995, was converted to C++ a few years, later, had a complete revision of the old Sybase code in 2005, and has continued to add features over time consistently then being converted to work on Linux as something that could be dismissed as technically unimpressive for the sole reason that 20 years earlier before all that it started out as working on UNIX systems. It started this journey before Linux even existed.[1]
The big innovation, which is obvious to anyone that bothered to look into it, is that they provided and optimized system call agnostic layer to provide accurate, performant access to the base system in a way that was OS independent, and was lauded as fairly impressive and interesting at the time. That people are so fixated on the company that own the product that they can't even assess something on its own merits before dismissing it because of its association with that parent company is exactly the problem I was alluding to originally. The whole reason there's a note in the guidelines about avoiding shallow dismissals is because it lowers the quality of the site in general for everyone.
That said, I wouldn't call a product that diverged from Sybase SQL Server entirely in 1995, was converted to C++ a few years, later, had a complete revision of the old Sybase code in 2005, and has continued to add features over time consistently then being converted to work on Linux as something that could be dismissed as technically unimpressive for the sole reason that 20 years earlier before all that it started out as working on UNIX systems. It started this journey before Linux even existed.[1]
The big innovation, which is obvious to anyone that bothered to look into it, is that they provided and optimized system call agnostic layer to provide accurate, performant access to the base system in a way that was OS independent, and was lauded as fairly impressive and interesting at the time. That people are so fixated on the company that own the product that they can't even assess something on its own merits before dismissing it because of its association with that parent company is exactly the problem I was alluding to originally. The whole reason there's a note in the guidelines about avoiding shallow dismissals is because it lowers the quality of the site in general for everyone.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SQL_Server