SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 55
  1. #26
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    SQL Server may be more powerful, but to me it sounds like you don't need an enterprise package for your company. Unless you plan on powering a very large website that needs demanding scaling and flexibility, or you need to access specific software that is Microsoft proprietory, you will most likely find no difference between PHP/MySQL and ASP/SQL Server. I doubt you will even need any of the extra features in MSSQL. What kind of website are you talking about?

    What's best for your company is probably PHP/MySQL because it is proven to handle, is far less expensive (free), is very scalable, and is something that will be around for a very long time. Even the very center of web hosting - a top 2000 site with constantly changing pages - WebHostingTalk.com uses the PHP/MySQL combination.

    If you're looking out for yourself, choose SQL Server. It's clear that there is more demand and higher salary for somebody who is proficient in SQL Server. If you're looking out for your company, choose MySQL. It will save them thousands of dollars on extra features they probably don't even need. (That is, unless you're planning to be the next Amazon.com )

  2. #27
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mysql.

    Free as in freedom

    EOF.

  3. #28
    Yugo full of anvils bronze trophy hillsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    :noitacoL
    Posts
    1,859
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    that's me!
    Now A Pom. And a Plone Nut
    Broccoli Martinez Airpark

  4. #29
    minister of propaganda silver trophy Rynoguill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Midsouth
    Posts
    1,373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i could really get into a rant here (theres just so much juicy stuff in this thread), but im going to restrain myself and give a few quick opinons and get out.

    1. i know you didnt ask an opinion about this but i feel like i would have to answer to you and God on judgement day if i did not warn you: if you have any choice at all (and everyone always has choices) DO NOT USE HOSTWAY!!!!! if you value your sanity, your time, and your work stay as far away from them as possible. they will take your money, and give you shoty at best service, customer support that is nonexistant at best, and worst of all, if you finally do get through to someone, they do not know what they are talking about in the least!!! just a warning.

    2. you said non profit, i say go for free. you say you want easy, i say go for mysql. you can get numerous numerous apps to administer it just as easily. i dont like mssql, its clunky, its slow (mostly when trying to administer is what im refering to) and i can do everything i want with mysql. now dont take that as knocking ms, chances are, access will be just fine for what youre wanting. i really havent heard you say anything of why you really need an enterprise level db solution. i have built huge sites on access and never had a problem. but if youre giving a choice between mssql, and mysql, my humble opinion is to go with mysql.

    3. coldfusion is the way i hope the industry is turning, and ive never been happier to hear rudy say this. ive heard good things about postgre as well, and tried to get it once but i couldnt get it to run using cygwin on my windows machine and didnt have time to install linux on anything at the time. i know this doesnt work for you in this situation but i suggest anyone with the time and resources checking it out.

    4. i beleive in the end its going to come down to your personal preference. dont worry, whatever path you choose there will be plenty of work down that road. plenty of people still want to use access, all the way up to plenty of people wanting to pay too much for oracle. so chances are youll be able to use your skills no matter what you choose.

    in the end, good luck, and let us all know what you decide!
    rynoguill
    Ryan Guill, AKA Mark Roman

  5. #30
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think that if you are building a small site, something that can reside on a shared server, then there are many reasons to choose mysql.

    First of all, it is easy to get quality, inexpensive hosting for php/mysql. Windows and ms sql can be expensive and difficult to maintain. If you need a backup for mysql it is one click from cpanel.

    If you decide to sell the site, the fact that it is a php/mysql site is a great selling point. They are simple to transfer and it is easy to find hosting for them. If the site sells for less than 5K or so, it is a relatively small site and the preferred technology in the marketplace is php/mysql. I know I won't buy a small site that's asp/ms sql for that reason. The licensing alone brings the ROI way down and hurts resellability.

    Now with that said, if you are building a large application that will take a whole server or more or that is corporate in nature, it is likely that asp.net/ms sql may be your best bet. It is more scalable and has better admin tools and most importantly is well respected in the corporate world.

    In review, my opinion would be, if you plan on building a site that sells for less than 5K then definitely go php/mysql. If you planning on developing a larger-scale site or a corporate site then I would seriously consider asp.net/ms sql.

  6. #31
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bangalore,India
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by matt_12511
    Which one is a better fit for me? for the company I work for?

    Ok, I work for a non-profit company with 8 employee's. We are growing quickly and sell our material all over the country. We are expanding our online abilities to include online training and web conferencing. I am in charge of designing the new website. I will create my own shopping cart, as well as a database for online success stories.

    Our host offers two packages Windows 2003, and a Unix plan. Unix uses MySQL and Windows 2003 uses MS SQL Server.

    Which is easier to use?
    Which is better to learn for my resume (selfish ) ?
    What direction is the web moving in? PHP/MySQL or ASP.NET/SQL Server?
    If I use SQL Server do I need to buy an expensive client SQL Server from Microsoft so that I can use SQL Server or is it a cheap/free download?

    What are your opinions?

    Thanks all,

    Matt
    ok. Its fine. This is for testing

  7. #32
    SitePoint Addict matt_12511's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    256
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks to everyone for their comments.

    Our organization will be starting to do online training, product demo's, and seminars. As well as running an online catalog and a database of success stories. We are starting slow and need room to grow, that is why I thought we should upgrade now to an enterprise database. The enterprise databases tend to be faster and more secure than Access and can handle far more records. Other than security those features are not terribly important at this time.

    Hostway has terrible support and seems to be an all around bad provider. Their common response to any question is "We don't do that" or "it must be something your doing." The best one yet was when I asked them why I couldnt set up a database and they (finally) looked at my code and said "it must be your code because we took the connection string out and it did not have an error" ...lol

    I think Young Twig's comment is important to take notice of. If the job market pushes for 75-80% MS SQL then it is likely the way the world is heading.

    And the best comment: "Nothing is absolute" because each software has its qualities and its faults.

    MS SQL Server:
    Pros:
    1) Its Microsoft so it will always be a big name in the business
    2) Its Fast and Feature rich

    Con:
    1) MS SQL staff cost more (good for me/bad for org)
    2) Its more expensive
    3) Its not open-source

    MySQL
    Pros:
    1) Its Free
    2) Its open-source
    3) MySQL staff are cheaper to employ (less demand for them)

    Cons:
    1) Fewer features
    2) less speed
    3) less secure
    4) Lower Name Value...Doesn't come with a "Microsoft" type name (advantage similar to having Intel vs celeron) people trust who they have heard of.

    Thats what I have learned so far...Hows it look?

    Thanks for the help,

    Matt

  8. #33
    I'm a college yuppie now! sbdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Dublin , Ireland
    Posts
    1,271
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Curious:

    Why do you list Con for MS not being open source and pro MySQL it is open source.
    Back Again

  9. #34
    minister of propaganda silver trophy Rynoguill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Midsouth
    Posts
    1,373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sbdi
    Curious:

    Why do you list Con for MS not being open source and pro MySQL it is open source.
    cause he likes open source...
    rynoguill
    Ryan Guill, AKA Mark Roman

  10. #35
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JodoHost
    There is a reason why Microsoft SQL Server is expensive
    MS Sql Server is really not very expensive compare with most "enterprise class" DBMS's. IBM, Oracle, Sybase, etc. are all much more than Sql Server.

    I agree, though, that MySQL is not the best option, except for small projects.

  11. #36
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,350
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nathwdavis
    ... except for small projects.
    in which case you could also use Access, which is much easier for small projects than MySQL



    (although i guess you would have to buy Access, it's not free)
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  12. #37
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sbdi
    Curious:

    Why do you list Con for MS not being open source and pro MySQL it is open source.

    I agree. It's funny that Open Source is the big cheese. I don't see OS as being better (not really worse either). Its just a different way of creating and supporting software. It has its cons too:

    1. Liability is not on any company. Therefore there is less accountability to create a reliable product.

    2. Support is not centralized and usually can't be considered official.

    3. It's open, including security vulnerabilities. So it's more likely that a hacker may get into your DB, before a patch is available.

  13. #38
    minister of propaganda silver trophy Rynoguill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Midsouth
    Posts
    1,373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nathwdavis
    I agree. It's funny that Open Source is the big cheese. I don't see OS as being better (not really worse either). Its just a different way of creating and supporting software. It has its cons too:

    1. Liability is not on any company. Therefore there is less accountability to create a reliable product.

    2. Support is not centralized and usually can't be considered official.

    3. It's open, including security vulnerabilities. So it's more likely that a hacker may get into your DB, before a patch is available.
    actually, i really dont agree with your points 1 and 2.

    i think because there is so many people using and creating the product that it tends to be more reliable on a greater scale. with people using the betas and putting in their input, by the time you get to a production release its usually better than some closed source options. specifically with mysql.

    and because so many people are using and trying the products and a scale past the developers alone before production, usually security vulnerabilities are found and rectified before production. in fact i havent heard of any security risks with mysql so far... (although i dont go looking for them either).

    but youre right in the fact tha open source does have its cons as well. im honestly pro what gets the job done the easiest, quickest and cheapest. its just usually cheapest rules a lot of those decisions and you cant get much cheaper than free!
    rynoguill
    Ryan Guill, AKA Mark Roman

  14. #39
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by matt_12511
    Which one is a better fit for me? for the company I work for?

    Ok, I work for a non-profit company with 8 employee's. We are growing quickly and sell our material all over the country. We are expanding our online abilities to include online training and web conferencing. I am in charge of designing the new website. I will create my own shopping cart, as well as a database for online success stories.

    Our host offers two packages Windows 2003, and a Unix plan. Unix uses MySQL and Windows 2003 uses MS SQL Server.

    Which is easier to use?
    Which is better to learn for my resume (selfish ) ?
    What direction is the web moving in? PHP/MySQL or ASP.NET/SQL Server?
    If I use SQL Server do I need to buy an expensive client SQL Server from Microsoft so that I can use SQL Server or is it a cheap/free download?
    Hi Matt,

    If you are going to be creating a shopping cart / ecommerce site, you probably want something with true transaction support. In this case you would want somethink like MS SQL Server, Oracle, or IBM. I think that PostgreSQL also has good transaction abilities.

    Transactions allow you to run queries and updates as a batch. If something goes wrong along the way, everything that was previously done is rolled back. It's pretty much a necessity for ordering systems.

    MySQL does not have true transactions support. SQL Server does.

    Another advantage that SQL Server has is its auto-tuning capabilities. Every DBMS needs tuning to get it to perform the best for its application. Most DB's require that the DBA manually make these adjustments, even Oracle. SQL Server on the other hand is way ahead in its auto-tuning capability. It gathers statistics as it is being used and adjusts itself to perform the best.

    SQL Server costs a bit, but during development of your ASP.NET site (or PHP) you can use the free MSDE version of SQL Server.
    Nate Davis
    Web Programmer
    nathanwdavis.com

  15. #40
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Utrecht/Moscow
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I had very pleasant experience with PostgreSQL - it is very extensible, allows you to move a good third of your application right into the database itself (with functions, triggers and views), it is free and well-supported and there are ODBC-JDBC connectors for it too. It is encodings-friendly (I am using it for storing Unicode data) and pretty fast, not to mention a friendly userbase, it has many addons that can at least compensate a part of what is missing from it compared to Oracle/ MSSQL. I recommend you try out Postgres on your local machine and see if you like it, after that you can easily change to a hosting that supports it.

    The only 2 drawbacks (IMO) to Postgres are:
    1) one process/daemon per connection (if your database is hit really hard you can spawn too manny processes).
    2) running it on Windows is a big pain (it is possible but onyl through Cygwin with addons).

  16. #41
    SitePoint Member zdislaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nathwdavis
    1. Liability is not on any company. Therefore there is less accountability to create a reliable product.

    2. Support is not centralized and usually can't be considered official.

    3. It's open, including security vulnerabilities. So it's more likely that a hacker may get into your DB, before a patch is available.
    While I don't believe that Open Source is better just 'cause it's open (I use it because it's free), I dissagree with all of your arguements.

    1. Once you are using MSSQL in your production environment, liability is not on MS. Be sure to read the license. They assume no liability whatsoever for what happens with their product. MS products have proven to have many reliability problems and still people keep using them. They just claim that it's not their fault and that admins need to apply patches immediately to keep their systems secure. Never mind that you can't take a production server down every week, apply the patches, and hope that they don't undo something that the patch three months ago fixed.

    2. MS support is nearly always useless and is no more centralized than OS support (Is there anyone in Redmond or directly employed by MS anywhere else who provides support for MS products?). If I use a particular Open Source app I can usually count on great support from other users of that app. Sure, they aren't "certified," but I'm always able to fix a problem with an Open Source app faster than a problem where I have to call an 800 number and dick around with them for a week while they try and figure out why it's not their problem. Oh, and MySQL does offer centralized (probably more centralized than MS): http://www.mysql.com/support/

    3. This arguement can easily be applied in the reverse by saying that, because the source is open, vulnerabilites can be caught more readily in beta before they are finally released for production use. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you gotta admit that this door swings both ways. Neither open nor closed is perfect in this regard and never will be.

    Again, I don't advocate against the use of Closed Source. I just make my determinations differently:
    1. What hardware and server am I using?
    2. How much traffic can I expect?
    3. Do I need to use "transactions" in a heavy, ecommerce situation?
    4. Who will be administering the system?
    5. What is the budget?

    MySQL has been knocked for so long as being unsuitable for high-traffic sites. I don't think this has actually been true for some time, but that statement just keeps going around out of habit. Pricegrabber.com has been using PHP/MySQL for years and currently stores about 50GB of data that is updated six times daily on two MySQL databases.

    Some items of interest:

    MySQL Moves on Clustering Technology
    MySQL adding stored procedures to database
    Forrester: More Firms Using MySQL
    The Myths of Open Source
    Tim
    "We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities."
    - Pogo

  17. #42
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    JodoHost.com
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zdislaw
    1. Once you are using MSSQL in your production environment, liability is not on MS. Be sure to read the license. They assume no liability whatsoever for what happens with their product. MS products have proven to have many reliability problems and still people keep using them. They just claim that it's not their fault and that admins need to apply patches immediately to keep their systems secure. Never mind that you can't take a production server down every week, apply the patches, and hope that they don't undo something that the patch three months ago fixed.
    Have you ever managed a MS SQL Server? Do you know what you are talking about? We manage production level MS SQL Servers and have never had a reliability issue till date. MS SQL is a wonderful product that performs exceptionally well on Windows 2003. The only problem I can remmeber that hit MS SQL servers on mass was the Slammer bug. We were not affected because we had downloaded the patch before the bug hit.

    Also, Windows includes automatic patch installation so you do not have to do anything. Within 30 minutes of a patch being released, our servers are already updated. The number of patches that have been released for MS products this year have been significantly less

    Also, did you know that Red Hat Linux had more vulnerabilities discovered in 2001 and 2002 then Windows 2000? Windows 2003 is even more secure with its lock-down approach

    As far as liability goes, are you kidding me? Do you know what Microsoft has at stake if there was an issue with MS SQL Server that affects the reliability of their product?

    Quote Originally Posted by zdislaw
    MS support is nearly always useless and is no more centralized than OS support (Is there anyone in Redmond or directly employed by MS anywhere else who provides support for MS products?). If I use a particular Open Source app I can usually count on great support from other users of that app.
    That the most ridiculous thing I've heard till date. We have contacted MS support numerous times and have got professional help with any of the issues we have faced within the same day. Have you ever used their number? And there is plenty of support available for MS SQL on database forums from other MS SQL users the same way you might get support from other MySQL users

    Microsoft is a company that spends a whole lot of money into security and development. On the other hand, i assosciate open source with a disorganised approach to both development and security. We live in a capitalist economy. Profits drive development. profits drive quality. I do not believe in open source, sorry.
    Yash, CTO/Co-founder - JodoHost.com
    Sales: 1-888-289-2246 | Introducing Oracle10g Hosting!
    Windows 2003 | Cold Fusion MX | SQL Server | ASP.NET
    MultiPlatform Reseller Plans (Windows/Linux/VPS)

  18. #43
    SitePoint Zealot cholmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Also, did you know that Red Hat Linux had more vulnerabilities discovered in 2001 and 2002 then Windows 2000? Windows 2003 is even more secure with its lock-down approach
    where in the world did that come from? When did he say anything about red hat vs windows? I thought we were talking about MySQL. Regardless, it's silly to use red hat as the poster child for open source, particularly when it comes to security. how about OpenBSD's security record? I know that there are plenty of OSS projects that are crap, but it's not that difficult to determine which ones are and which ones aren't.

    i assosciate open source with a disorganised approach to both development and security
    ((insert cliche about opinions and a**holes)). May I ask why? What specific OSS projects lead you to adopt this blanket generalization? OSS is about freedom. the freedom to read the source code and extend it if the need/desire arises. but freedom requires responsibility...and if a bunch of 15 year old kids start up an open source project, chances are they won't have the responsibility (which is a function of experience) to inject the kind of QA that an older, wiser team would be able to. that also means that as an adopter of OSS, it is your responsibility to decide whether any given piece of software meets your organization's quality and security requirements.

    We live in a capitalist economy. Profits drive development. profits drive quality. I do not believe in open source, sorry.
    Since when does Open Source equate to non-profit? I'm pretty sure MySQL AB is just as profit-driven as Microsoft.

    I suggest we try to keep this thread as objective as possible. When it comes to market value (in terms of employability), SQL Server wins by a long shot. It's got the MS clout and a well-established certification program. I don't know the specifics of MySQL's certifications, but I know they've not been out nearly as long. When it comes to feature set, SQL Server definitely wins...SPs, triggers, views, sub-selects, DTS packages. MySQL has none of it (yet). MySQL has it's place though, and even without these features, it is possible to build and maintain a beefy DB solution that is both fast and secure. As far as which is easier to install/run/maintain, that depends entirely on the individual's technical aptitude and previous experience.

    In the end, if a system administrator/DBA knows wtf they're doing, either solution (Windows/SQL Server or *Nix/MySQL) will end up working great. A MySQL expert will be able to school a SQL Server newbie just like an MCDBA will be able to school a MySQL newbie.

  19. #44
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    326
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    isn't mysql/php/*nix hositng like half the price of ms hosting

  20. #45
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Milkyway
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ferret77
    isn't mysql/php/*nix hositng like half the price of ms hosting
    Maybe u pay like $2 more for the equivalent in linux. Although with those 2bucks you get SQL Server

    By the way, I'm talking about above avrage hosts. Not super leet nor 10years old owner ones.

    Regards
    "Money it's not everything!... There's gold, diamonds, etc..."

  21. #46
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ferret77
    isn't mysql/php/*nix hositng like half the price of ms hosting
    No, the price difference is not that big in my experience.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  22. #47
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    326
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ok

    so tell me where i can get a 4 gig diskspace 20 gig transfer reseller acccount for 20.00 a month... in windows

  23. #48
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,350
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ferret77
    so tell me where i can get a 4 gig diskspace 20 gig transfer reseller acccount for 20.00 a month... in windows
    is this close enough?

    $8 = 0.1g space, 5 g transfer
    $17 = 0.3g space, 15g transfer
    $27 = 0.4g space, 25 g transfer

    http://crystaltech.com

    i'm a reseller there

    crystaltech has by far the best reputation for service on the planet, and they have it for a very good reason

    you could look it up

    if you sign up, please put r937.com as the referral, i'll get a modest fee


    p.s. what's with the 4gig space requirement? are you hosting movies or something?
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  24. #49
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    326
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    actually i'm not switching to windows any time soon

    but I have client with around 20 asp sites and I am looking for a windows host for hime

  25. #50
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Milkyway
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What costs more to hosts is the bandwidth... The 4GB disk space is not the problem.

    You might want to go to www.webhostingtalk.com and ask for a host like that.
    Some webhost might make you an offer.

    Regards
    "Money it's not everything!... There's gold, diamonds, etc..."


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •