Slashdot Mirror
New SQL Server Release Slips to 2005
Strudelkugel writes "CRN reports SQL Server 'Yukon' will slip to 2005, complicating plans for ISVs and creating opportunities for OSS and other competitors."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Has any one contemplated the concept that Microsoft might actually be taking the time to make better products? I realise its taboo on slashdot to show any support to Microsoft, but the fact is that they are not stupid! Do you honestly believe they would just decide, hey, lets let linux + competitors get a foothold in our markets whilst we jack about! WRONG!
One thing anyone in the IT business should learn is to never ever under estimate microsoft.
I hate to disagree with that, but we recently had a project and had the choice of which SQL to use. Customer pushed back and simply said MS.
Just because the product isn't there doesn't mean they will automatically go to another 'free' alternative- instead it means they'll simply use the older version until it wears out.
If I had any doubts that MS is helping OSS and slowly erasing itself, it is now clearing :-)
Jokes aside, this will seriously affect businesses that have paid for their upgrade licenses, as the licenses will expire before the sql server is released. This will make decision makers view Open Source in a new light. Atleast, in Open Source you don't pay for future vaporware in the present.
"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Here's a company with many thousands of employees, more money than God, and a dominant position in almost every market segment they're in. And they STILL can't write secure code OR meet most of their delivery deadlines (deadlines which they set themselves, not ones that were imposed on them).
Meanwhile, the groups that produce products like MySQL and PostgreSQL have had steady releases, a wealth of needed features, and relatively few security incidents.
Unless you're already so heavily bought in to their infrastructure that any change would be prohibitively expensive, I can't see how it makes any sense to base your business on Microsoft's products. They're expensive, they're insecure, they're performance laggards, and you just can't rely on them for support.
Cheers,
I think they are delaying not due to stealing OSS software ideas, but honestly trying to make their software better. For the first time in many years MS has real competition. They can't release another insecure trashbag OS or database server. If they release before it is actually ready, then they will get tons of bad press and their lunch ate by OSS software.
Lets just hope OSS developers don't sit on their laurels during these delays. If they do they will be playing major catch up come 2005/2006. This is the time for OSS to take the lead. The boys at Redmond may be evil, but they are no fools.
This is one of Microsoft's most important products. Finacially, there is a huge amount of "positive perception" riding on SQL server.
Businesses may run on one of their OSes, but businesses run IN SQL Server. This product can make or (more critically) brake businesses. If rumors of major problems with SQL server screwing up business were to get out, corporate perception of them would tank.
They have no real choice with this product but to try and make sure it is ready (and take more time if needed) rather than push it to market.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Transactions? Exactly how many years behind the competition is OSS on that one?
If you used real databases, in real production environments on complex data sets, you'd see that MySQL just doesn't cut it - yet. It's great for trivial 'simple but big' datasets, but for data mining and analysis it's awful.
Then buy a support contract. Then you will get what you paid for. I'm using MySQL and MS SQL 2000 in an Enterprise environment and MySQL (on second-hand hardware mind you -- our primary database runs on MS because that's what our vendor supports -- bah) is ten times easier to manage and work with then SQL Server 2000.
I'm not even using a support contract and I still prefer MySQL. Saying "you get what you pay for" without even acknowledging that they offer support (and the fact that it's open source and you can fix bugs/add your own features without paying thousands of dollars of licensing fees) is a fairly stupid statement to make.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How about ANSI '92 compliance for MySQL... that would be a good start!
No, a good start would be to flush MySQL down the toilet where it belongs and use a real database engine such as PostgreSQL or Firebird.
Seriously! Why wait for MySQL to add all those missing features when such superior alternatives already exist, and, furthermore, MySQL has a more restrictive license?
Yukon is finally going to deliver online restoration, database mirroring with automatic failover, and support for mirrored backup sets.
Let's face it, these features isn't something most users need. If Microsoft sees real trouble, they will simply slash the per-processor license cost by a factor of 50 or 100, and switching suddenly becomes a non-issue for most users.
Per-client licenses and awfully high per-processor licensing costs are the most important factor which motivates most users to attempt other solutions. Of course, the proprietary databases have important features which look very good on paper, but I've seen quite a few installations which use a multi-thousand dollar database as if it were MySQL (not even using online backup). You can get away with that if you only need a workgroup server license, but if you need 20,000 client access licenses (or multiple per-processor licenses), licensing becomes a problem and you'll certainly consider other options.
Meanwhile, MySQL is now doing transactions, and VIEWs are on their way in 5.1. It's GPL, so it's free (as in speech).
Why not use Postgres? That way, you don't have to wait for features that all the other RDBMS products have had for years. What is it that makes MySQL so much more popular than Postgres? It sure isn't features.
Wow, views will finally be in version 5.1.
Jeez. First time I looked at MySQL a couple of years ago for a project I started putting a basic database scheme together an went to construct a view, only for my Jaw to hit the desk when I found out they were not available. Views are such a basic component of RDBMS databases that it simply hadn't occurred to me (an Oracle, DB2, SQLServer and others veteran) that software could be release that called itself a relational database that didn't have them.
Anyway, just went and used Postgres instead. It's still beyond me why people even bother giving MySQL the time of day when the incomparably superior Postgres is available under GPL.
I really do wish mickysoft would rename their flagship database something else. Are they that arrogant that they feel the need for such a generic name? That's about like naming your product "Web Server" or "Network File Server". When someone mentions SQL server, I always have them clarify whether or not they are talking in general terms for some sort of relational backend, or are they referring to microsoft's product. Sometimes they don't even know the difference, but perhaps that is microsoft's end goal.
otherwise you'd realize you build software to specifications, one of which is "we have a site license for MS SQL Server."
That means... they tell us to build the system to operate on it, and we deliver.
Coming back to them and informing them we aren't going to listen to their needs would result in, oh, someone else having been awarded the contract.
Give MS a frickin' break....MS said there is going to be something like 40 *million* lines of code...
Just out of curiosity, I counted the lines of code (both c & assembler, all processors) of the 2.6.4 kernel. It is less than 5.5 million.
40 million lines of code. There's all the reason I ever need to not use it.
With 40 million lines of code, you never fix bugs, the best you can hope for is to relocate them to a really obscure place.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Unfortunately, as far as I can see (and my idea will be readily disputed by others) no OSS database is ready for "enterprise" systems (whatever that means, I work in a company who writes software and the backend can be any RDMBS as long as they have a decend JDBC driver). SQL Server 2k has lots of missing features which makes our life very hard and I'm not a fan but at the moment I can't go to any of our customers and say use postgres or mySQL etc.
Another big player is DB2 by IBM which claims it has the fastest database on the world but DB2 is cumbersome, hard to manage compared to Oracle and MS SQL2k but it works almost under any platform under the sun.
Database world is quite interesting, I can't say any RDMS system out there is perfect.
As long as you can accept the limitations of MySQL, it's perfectly usable. MySQL is faster and lighter weight than PostgreSQL in my experience. I haven't tried Firebird yet.
Honestly, I wouldn't want to run a site like Slashdot on MySQL, but for smaller projects it seems useful.
RDBMSes don't implement Codd's 12 rules anyway, so maybe none of them are "real". Personally I think it's good to have a range of database options. At the high end, Oracle and DB2 have loads of features, and are presumably "real" by your definition, but they are also incredibly complex to administrate, which is why most companies have dedicated DBAs for them.
What is it that makes MySQL so much more popular than Postgres?
Lower barrier to entry.
Since the vast majority of toy applications don't
need anything more than a hashed flat file (like gdbm), people find it easy
to get things working with MySQL (MySQL abstracts a flat file quite easily)
and suddenly think they're Database GODS. Then, when they attempt a new
db project, they either force MySQL into it because it's what they know, or
they look at a more powerful DB package, realize they're in over their head,
and decide that the DB package is to blame for their inability to use it, thus
reinforcing their idea that MySQL is a better tool.
Now I realize that there are lots of applications where MySQL is perfectly
adequate, but the ease of using MySQL for toy applications has fooled lots
of people who have limited db skills at best into thinking that they're
experts.
*sigh* back to work...
>corperations are still using MSSQL 6.5 for critical
>databases because 2000 still has some problems.
>the only other database they use is Oracle, and
>MSSQL is a tiny joke of a toy compared to it.
I suppose you have never run SQL 2000 on a decently powerful machine.
I also suppose you never put a load balancing application on top of a dozen or so SQL 2000 boxes.
Get over it. SQL 2000 is on par with Oracle, Sybase, DB2, etc.
How the fuck did this get modded to +5?
Wow, MySQL now has an official front-end tool (instead of one of many third-party ones that it's had for ages), oohh, that'll make ALL the difference. It's got NOWHERE NEAR the feature set of MS-SQL, Oracle, PostgreSQL, or Firebird. Christ, we had to wait till version FOUR till they added native transaction support (which wasn't ever written by them), subqueries, replication, etc. and we're still not sure that it even does any of this properly now! (Each point release massively changes and/or extends features, which is stupid for a supposedly stable DB.) Sounds like a "real" DB to me that'll definitely compete with Oracle and MS-SQL, yeah right...
But because Slashdot loves MySQL this gets modded to +5 by people who don't know shit about databases, and certainly not about MS SQL Server. Great.
The only reason MySQL became popular was because it was free and ran well together with Apache on modest hardware, so ISPs could bundle it as a *simple* website backend DB. It does that pretty well (as long as you don't mind running REPAIR TABLE every now and again), but it's certainly no viable alternative to MS-SQL or Oracle. Anyone that thinks that and uses the acronym M$ in the same post really doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
I'm with you on that one. Once I installed Postgres I haven't looked back. What I admire about the Postgres team is that they focus on standards first and speed second. Smart, because eventually speed catches up (through code optimization or just over time through hardware); whereas MySQL has to add in features afterwards, and do so without slowing it down (and thus pissing off its following). Please MySQL fans, no flaming.
Postgres vs. MS SQL is sort of a different issue. MS SQL has all kinds of features Postgres doesn't have, e.g. lots of replication features (I believe, though I've never had to use them) and its optimizer seems more intelligent than Postgres'. That said, very few dataservers actually use the extended features, and my casual complaints about Postgres' optimizer are quelled by a) fixing my query b) VACUUMing the database as instructed or c) realizing that it was only a few ms slower anyway. Cons on the MS SQL Server side are that a) it ties to you one platform, b) tends to have large gaping security holes and c) tends more often to be implemented by those without a clue of DBAing or security.
Whoops, I ranted.
Oh Joy
Just what you need a new microsoft database that makes refactoring and porting your DB to another platform near impossible.
Larry Elison is probably chuckling like a demented monkey over this. I can see his sales people going at this. Microsoft Software assurance = Pay them to take their time to devise ways to achieve complete customer lock in. Or, the ever popular why run your business using techniques with 50 years of validation behind them when you can do things microsofts way.
I can allready see the security problems popping up. Run C# code directly, the same code being ever more integrated into yukon. Well seems we will be able to expect worms that make slammer look like a joke. Heck you could have them replicate throughout the entire system and hold entire enterprises data hostage.
The sad thing is that the large group of IT director/ Sysadmin lemmings will go along with no one ever got fired for choosing microsoft. After all, look at how they have embraced the ever popular and ever more dangerous office/exchange combo.
SQL Server 2005? is going to be great. However, if I had to choose the *best* database I would go with Oracle without a doubt. Every tool other database manufacturers are trying to mirror generally come from Oracle. Plus they support Linux which makes buying very expensive hardware a problem of the past. Hell you can get a license for standard for $799.
Unfortunately my job runs SQL Server 2000. Having cut my teeth on PL/SQL, Transact is a nightmare because it is so limiting.
I'm actually looking forward to Yukon because the marketing ad sheet shows some really cool features. The only question is will they deliver and when will it be?
Much as I love a good MS Bashing, I'll tell you what I find really lacking (personally) for PostgreSQL and other OSS RDBMSs - a good GUI management tool.
Something that helps you craft medium-complicated joins quickly with a few clicks and drags.
For example, see this screenshot from Visual Interdev working on MSSQL2k, creating a SQL Query for a stored proc. Sure, it's almost trivial to hand-write the SQL code. But it was even easier to just select a few tables, click on the fields I want, right-click on the joins (created automatically from the database structure) to change their type, and be done.
I use PGSQL for all my personal projects now, but I sorely miss the speed that a GUI editor like this allowed me.
Same code, but different security model/sandbox. The CLR in yukon does not have access to the file system, sockets, winforms, services, the registry or anything else a virus is going to need. It's limited to communicating with the SQL process and manipulating data within a database. Nothing more.
MySQL...is ten times easier to manage and work with then SQL Server 2000.
I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? I've used both these servers extensively (as well as Sybase ASA, PostgreSQL and Oracle), and as much as I respect MySQL, it's certainly no easier to use than SQL Server. It's at best about the same, with SQL Server being much easier to pick up from 0 knowledge due to a surprisingly good set of help docs. Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer are really good tools, as well...in fact, until we discovered mssqlXpress, Query Analyzer was bar none my favorite IDE for making new statements. (sqlXpress adds sourcesafe integration, versioning, and historical reporting to a clone of Q.A. with autocomplete and automatic proc generation, it is a pretty clutch tool)
MySQL is very good, but ten times better? Not really. In fact, if I had to beg for any SQL Server regardless of price, I'd take SQL Server because it's the easiest to develop for and easiest to port FROM. This gives you an app that will run on almost any other server with a little effort. I rewrote a massive app to run on Sybase in three weeks and Postgres in a month (most of which was testing the DB core of our app).
Hey freaks: now you're ju
They don't just stick these products out there, they let people use4 them first and check whether things work... duh...
;-)
Oh, you mean the wonderful deal where you pay for the priviledge of being a beta tester?
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
As technically inferior MySQL is to Postgres, MySQL has a few major things going for it that ensure it's niche.
1. Easy to install on Windows. The average coder at a Windows-only farm can easily run the executable and have the latest version running on their developer box. Not all companies allow you to have multiple boxes, and many force you (via draconion security measures) to only run windows with certain software installed. Postgres NEEDS a user-friendly Win32 installer, perhaps with a similar info-item like MySQL has. This is a MUST for companies to start to take notice. Then, a PHB can even play with it and like it.
2. Marketing. While open-source, MySQL has a nice marketing engine behind it. A beautiful webpage, online and PRINT adds, and magazine and newspaper articles CONSTANTLY writing about the "little database that could" every few week / months. Postgres needs to start getting the word out, and hype it a little. Just because a product is superior, doesn't mean it will thrive. There are tons of examples out there: Beta vs VHS, Windows vs OS X, etc. For a database to be used, it must be allowed and "signed off" by a manager of some sort. Most will take reputation + support + "ooh, nice webpage" over a product that might be better, but they know nothing about it.
3. More management tools. MySQL has a couple out there that look and run great; very professional looking. This earns respect from PHB's, as they are easily misled by such niceties.
Don't get me wrong. MySQL is nice, but doesn't have what I need most (Views, triggers, etc). Postgres may not be perfect, but I think it is superior. We just need to get the word out to those "not in the know".
> There *is* one thing that MySQL is good at and that is performance.
Whoa. MySQL is only good at "performance" under very simplistic use cases (single table selects, low insert/update load). Which describes a web board, but not that many real world applications. I'm sure this is one of the perceptions that the guy is fighting with -- that "MySQL is teh fasterest", when in fact with their applicaiton which is obviously designed for real DB servers, it isn't.
There's nothing as gratifying when working on a project as realizing that you've built such a solid, engineered solution that you can throw out five layers of error checking that test for conditions that you can rigorously prove cannot exist. Those are the sorts of speedups that PostgreSQL has been undergoing, and even if I didn't like PostgreSQL as a product, I would certainly commend their design team for such excellent work.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Isn't Slashdot run on MySQL?
And Microsoft.com runs on IIS -- but that doesn't mean that IIS is everything to everyone; nor does the fact that Slashdot runs on MySQL mean that MySQL is good for everyone.
MySQL is really good at a really limited subset of queries. If MySQL is all you know, then your ignorance is bliss in that you don't know all the other wonderful things a real RDBMS can do for you since MySQL never offered them to you.
Once you've used a real database system, you could never go back to the chains of MySQL.
NO CARRIER