No, it would be like calling Microsoft Internet Explorer just "Internet Explorer". That's what most people call it.

If IE were called "Web Browser", I think we'd feel the need to prefix it with MS.

At least in my community, when you talk about "sql server" it's obvious that you're talking about MS SQL Server. In the same way, postgreSQL is "postgres" and Oracle Database is just "oracle".

That community being people who already know about the brand. I say it every day at work, too, but the OP still has a valid point for public discussion.

No, he has not. "sql server" is just the product's name, it's not a generic category of servers.

We call the generic category "SQL Server" belongs to: database servers, or relational database servers.

No one uses "sql server" for something besides naming that specific MS product.

Fair enough. I still think it's hard to say how confusing it is to those not familiar with the brand.

I don't know about your culture, but I've never heard anyone use 'sql server' when they meant 'the database server'. You just don't call it that. I also think it's a pretty dumb product name. You might as well call a web server 'html server'.

People not familiar is Microsoft are probably not taking part in a discussion on HackerNews, let alone a discussion of why their SQL Server product was not ported to *nix.

Especially since there's also Sybase SQL server, on which MS SQL Server was originally based on, and which actually ran on Unix just fine...

It still does, under a new name Adaptive Server.

At least he's not just calling it "SQL", like certain people at my job do.