This is a severe comment (or, maybe, severed?)
"Microsoft sets date for SQL Sever on Linux"
Somewhere an "r" was severed and noone heard it screaming...
The slow reveal that is Microsoft's SQL-Server-on-Linux strategy has taken a small step forward, with Redmond pressing “publish” on a blog post discussing SQL strategy. Microsoft has also promised to ship SQL Server 2016 during this calendar year, having recently and quietly popped out the first release candidate (in which “ …
MS-SQL for Windows only serves one purpose, and that's to calm down their customers and users by telling them that even if Windows Server would disappear tomorrow, they could still run their SQL-Server. So there's no need to switch to new fangled web stuff like PHP and MySQL or whatever.
There's virtually no practical use for this, as Linux users won't switch to MS-SQL (there are better free alternatives out there), and MS-SQL users won't switch to Linux.
I can think of at least one practical situation where SQL Server would get rolled out on Linux regularly - and that's where an organisation has a web system based on Linux, and want a member of staff who knows SQL Server from their internal Windows systems to be able to code a database for it. Saves having to pay an additional wage to employ a whiz from the Linux RDBMS pool from outside their organisation. It would also allow standardization on one RDBMS, rather than having multiple different ones.
" a web system based on Linux, and want a member of staff who knows SQL Server from their internal Windows systems to be able to code a database for it"
This assumes that SQL Server devs are incapable of working with any other SQL databases. Is that really the case?
It is a situation but not a practical one. If SQL server gets rolled out on Linux regularly, the organization already has Linux/Unix staff to take care of that, they don't need to bring in a Windows guy. Conversely, if the organization has strong skills in SQL on Windows, they wouldn't run it on Linux, the Windows guys would successfully prevent that. Finally, when companies decide to standardize they get rid of *nix RDBMS completely to proudly become a wall-to-wall Microsoft shop.
"there are better free alternatives out there"
Core database functionality of the free databases may be comparable to SQL Server, but they are nowhere near in terms of the full package.
To pick some random examples, where are the better free alternatives to SQL Server's multi-master replication? What about Analysis Services? I'm sure I could think a dozen features of SQL Server that are better than the free alternatives.
(Last time I used PostgreSQL - admittedly a long time ago, it required a database dump and restore when upgrading versions. Honestly I would still use it, but better than SQL Server? Nope.)
Yes, I agree with you. Most folks using a commercial database (e.g. Oracle) will continue to do so rather than move to SQL Server on Linux.
I look forward to seeing if Microsoft can make an impact on Oracle's market share. It has a chance, assuming it will be much cheaper than Oracle.
Those commenting in support of SQLServer on Linux "supposedly" due to lack of excellent databases that run in both environments, like latest PostgreSQL 9.4 - that is competitive in all the advanced features and functionality with SQLServer 2016, and even has large scale commercial support from companies like EnterpriseDB, investors of which include IBM and RedHat, amoung others.
The evidence is in recent case studies where PostgreSQL successfully replaced sophisticated Oracle Database solutions in several Fortune 500 corporations and large engineering and other business industries, in a reasonable time with greater efficiency and ease, and with considerably savings overall.
The reality of PostgreSQL being equal to or superior in competitiveness to SQLServer is always refuted by delusional Microsoft loyal dupes.
Except.... that if you pay for large scale enterprise support it costs nigh on as much as an MSSQL licence for the same feature set. Just like if you pay for Red Hat Enterprise it costs about as much as Windows Server.
And if you don't buy support you need staff who can support it, which also costs money. If you operate at IBM/Google/Facebook scale it's a saving to support it yourself, but otherwise even for large blue-chips it doesn't make sense.
Products are priced the way they are because that's the most they can charge without making their customers switch. Ergo, at any price point, everything is usually approximately equal value for money..
"""Except.... that if you pay for large scale enterprise support it costs nigh on as much as an MSSQL licence for the same feature set. Just like if you pay for Red Hat Enterprise it costs about as much as Windows Server."""
Except that I can affirm that RHEL support works quite well, while I can't say the same of MS' support.
This just goes to show Microsoft has not changed.
1. Announce exciting new product to compete with whoever. Sowing Fear Uncertaintity and Doubt.
2. Announce release date far off in the future. Making customers hold off spending on competitors product.
3. Quietly drop product.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021