Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New SQL Server Release Slips to 2005

Posted by michael on from the mysql-available-now dept.

Strudelkugel writes "CRN reports SQL Server 'Yukon' will slip to 2005, complicating plans for ISVs and creating opportunities for OSS and other competitors."

34 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. That's okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because SQL Server 2000 is pretty much the best database around for the price.

    Who needs all that integrated .NET stuff anyway?

    1. Re:That's okay by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well, it seems SQL Server is pricing itself close to Oracle these days...and if they are on par costwise...I'd go Oracle.

      For open source..I'm still looking into it, but, I like PostgreSQL the best at this point..good data integrity...very oracle like....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Yukon's promised features by BigHungryJoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not good for MS. A lot of people have been waiting on Yukon. Yukon is finally going to deliver online restoration, database mirroring with automatic failover, and support for mirrored backup sets.

    Disappointing. SQL Server had really come a long way, too. Maybe 2005 won't be too late.

    1. Re:Yukon's promised features by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Word. Licensing costs are a big issue with any database. A few months ago I had to devote about three weeks porting our app to Sybase. We wrote it originally for the MSDE (Microsoft SQL Desktop Engine) for our customers who couldn't afford a SQL server. MSDE is a really nice idea, but it only works with up to 5 connections before it tanks quality bigtime. And it seems our customers always needed 6 computers, which made the cost to add that last computer about $3000. Sybase ASA has a much nicer per-connection pricing.

      Why couldn't I use MySQL? Well, we'd already written the procs in T-SQL for ADO.NET. Using Sybase ASA allowed us to write a single set of procs that would work on both servers (after quite a bit of wrangling). Using MySQL would have required either using MySQL everywhere (which would have been no good for our clients who already have SQL Server and just want us to put our app on there) or maintaining two distinct sets of procs, which would have not flown with our QA team (already upset about testing the SAME procs on two servers).

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  3. What ... by fewnorms · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... they postponed yet another piece of software?? See me not being amazed here, I mean, it seems to be the trend at MS currently to announce new software and then postponing it due to "problems" ... I wonder why. Would it be because the want to see what OSS has to offer first so they can steal the ideas and then sell 'em off? On the other side, if developers start saying this "slip" is becoming "a credibility issue", then maybe certain OSS apps will finally be accepted in full as being grown-up pieces of software. At best this will cause MS to loose a few points in goodwill with a large group of people that still (foolishly) place their trust in them.

    --
    Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
    1. Re:What ... by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I saw a couple of Alpha builds of Yukon and the Planning papers (blue badge), but I didn't see much, but I bet I know what's taking so long:

      Yukon will allow structs as column types, and will do mapping between .NET types and SQL types automatically, and allow you to run C# SQLDataAdapter-type code natively within Stored procedures. Plus with the trend starting in SQL 2000, it'll be XML, XML, XML. I know XML will be a native type and some of the "indexed xml" (red/blue fast-search vs. DOM-search) that they started in the aborted Hailstorm project will be in there.

      Longhorn replaces Win32 with .NET; Yukon replaces the SQL you knew with new stuff. They'll eventually get it right and it will rock, but don't expect to use all this until 2007 (it'll be out before then, but you won't finish your first REAL project till then).

      There, I said it. 2007.

  4. OSS Opportunity by benjiboo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'd be surprised if any company of size would change something as mission critical as their DBMS due to this delay. To me, it says that they're going to get it right first time around.

    It's also worth the effort on Microsofts' part to get this right. After all, WinFS is going to be built on the same technology.

    --
    Vacancy for signature. Apply within.
    1. Re:OSS Opportunity by spells · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd be surprised if any company of size would change something as mission critical as their DBMS due to this delay. To me, it says that they're going to get it right first time around

      I agree with you about large company decisions remaining unchanged. But I have not ever seen a significant correlation between slipping release dates and improved quality - in fact, my experience says the opposite. Maybe SQL Server will be the exception, but I doubt it.

  5. OS RDBMS might profit by tronicum · · Score: 1, Interesting
    If the Open Source Databases implement equeally features that some applications might need, they can profit from the situation.

    MySQL Control Center is a step in that direction (client side) if they implement some more features on server side M$ centric customers need, it could get Microsoft into trouble in the future (some years)

    1. Re:OS RDBMS might profit by fupeg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How the fuck did this get modded to +5?

      You talk about people who don't know shit about databases, but you know so much that you had to post anonymously. You clearly don't know shit about MySQL.

      You're right that MySQL doesn't have all the features that Oracle and DB2 have, but those two databases don't have all the features that MySQL has. MySQL let's you tailor your databases/table types to what they are going to be used for. You can pick and even change on the fly the algorithm used for your tables. This let's you optimize tables that are read only or non-transactional for speed. Run your tables as MyISAM or HEAP if you have enough RAM, and the speed will blow away Oracle or IBM. If you need transactionality, then go with InnoDB tables.

      You also show your ignorance by putting Microsoft in the same sentence as Oracle. If you were building a true enterprise system, MS would not even enter the equation. DB2 would be the only other option to consider besides Oracle. You bitch about MySQL and "Each point release massively changes features." Look at MS. Why do you think they are slipping so badly on the next release of SQL Server? Just take a look at their list of new features they are promising and then talk about "massive changes." This is also not surprising since this will be the first release where they've really added anything over what they got from Sybase.

    2. Re:OS RDBMS might profit by jester · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So explain to me how society mods responses like this to +5 Insightful when all the guy ? (who knows, he only posts as an AC anyway) spouts is swear words and bile.

      Perhaps you ought to address the real issues one by one rather than venting your spleen. It would make a much more intersting comparison. MSSQL has advantages over MySQL ... nobody will argue against that. The fact is that many people do NOT need advanced features. Its horses for courses.

      MySQL has had transactions for some time, and will get triggers, views, etc. 5.0 already has stored procs, transactions, by default. Yes I know they've been around for some time in commercial offerrings, but the fact is that MySQL is OpenSource, written by volunteers. The support for MySQL is 10 times better than anything commercial I've seen, and its free.

      There, I didn't use one swear word in that. Go on, try it

  6. Like what? by Sla$hd0tSux0r · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What OSS opportunities does this create? Doesn't OSS need to close the gap with SQL 2000 before taking advantage of any slippage? How about ANSI '92 compliance for MySQL... that would be a good start!

    1. Re:Like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > As long as you can accept the limitations of MySQL, it's perfectly usable.

      If only it were missing features. My main problem with MySQL is its approach to missing data or constraints: use a half-assed default. Yes, you can train yourself to keep from running into them, yes you can train your team, everyone you bring on, all your customers with developers. Or you can install a database that actually does that for you. That's what computers are for.

  7. maybe by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    all this slipage is a cover for the fact that ms has been listening to it's customers ( forced by some healthy oss pressure ) 1: we don't want to be forced into upgrade cycles every 12 months. enterprise systems don't work that way. 2: take the time and fix the damn bugs. we are paying for this shit lets see it work properly.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  8. Actualy kind of sad by Cesaro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a DBA who deals with MS SQL 2k (and 7 and 6.5) on a day to day basis (hour to hour basis?) I'm actually kind of saddened by this. I was really looking forward to playing with the TSQL/.Net paradigm shift as far as accessing data.

    7.0 was a huge jump from 6.5 and 2k from 7.0 was almost as significant of a jump. I will call a spade a spade and say that the evolution of the MS SQL server has really impressed me and I was looking for good things from this next version as well. I know this is the wrong place to say such things, but I've had lots of problems with other MS problems, but this one since 7.0 has been quite good. Don't even get me started on some of their other products though. :)

    I'll just go hide in my DBA hole until 2005 I guess.

    1. Re:Actualy kind of sad by aclarke · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I completely agree with you. The only thing I really HATE about SQL Server is that it only runs on Windows Operating Systems. As I "only" have about 6 years of experience managing database servers, I find Oracle very frustrating to develop for and maintain. My databases aren't THAT huge (maybe 75-80 million records) and SQL Server works great. Of course, my main client is only now switching from v.7 to 2000 so I don't think this delayed release will affect me that much. I can do all my ColdFusion and Java development and hosting in Mac/Linux so SQL Server is the only thing forcing me to keep a Windows box in my closet (which of course was locked up when I tried to use it this morning).

      I do hope they can somehow do a better job with security with the next release, although that may be asking too much. :-( Last time I had to reinstall SQL Server 2000, the whole subnet was down with the SQL Slammer worm before I even had a chance to configure the server and download the patches from Microsoft. Ouch. You have to download the patches ahead of time, pull the server off the internet, install SQL Server and all the patches, change the default port (and obviously make sure your sa password is not blank, duh) and only THEN go back online. Wow.

      --

      www.clarke.ca
    2. Re:Actualy kind of sad by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hi,
      Could you tell me why you would use stored procedures?
      It just seems better to have another layer that handles that logic, seperate from the database. That way you can change databases easily.

      Is it just because the gui tools make it easier or something?

  9. except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many business customers have recently been coerced into signing ongoing contracts where they receive any upgrades in a particular year in exchange for a yearly fee.

    These companies are going to be extremely p155ed off when they realise that all they are going to get for their money is (maybe) XP Reloaded (think ME).

    Companies cannot afford to throw money down the microsoft toilet for much longer... especially when all they get is extra bugs that they didnt need in the first place, coupled with a healthy dose of lock-in and increased support costs.

  10. SQL 2005 & VS.NET 2005 by samsmithnz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What this article doesn't mention is that Visual Studio 2005 (formly known as Whitby) has also been delayed so that MS can release both products at the same time. (as VS.Net 2005 is supposed to be heavily integrated with the .NET features of SQL 2005)...

    The thing I don't understand is why VS.NET is being delayed like this, the SQL objects should be seperate and not integrated into VS.Net anyway!

  11. Re:BLASPHEMY! BLASPHEMY! YOU WILL EMBRACE MYSQL! by actiondan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yep, I was shocked when I first played with MySql, having heard such good things about it, and discovered how many features it lacked that I consider essential to a serious database.

    I have since got over my shock and realised that MySql is really good for what it is, but is really a different kind of beast to Oracle, MSSql etc.

    Dan.

  12. Re:Does this sound familiar? by penguinbrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did M$ Office pay off - or will it?

  13. marketing survey by martin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    About 6 months ago I was on the phone to some marketing company who were doing a survey on Yukon and whether or not I was contemplating deploying it.

    I said no because:

    1) it was too tighly integrated into AD/ windows server and we didn't any of that.
    2) I didn't trust it, and wouldn't till it had been in the field for at least a year.

    I think they got alot of responses like 2) (going by the marketers comments) and they prob decided to wait till the new windows server is out (2006??) and deploy on the new Trusted Computing Base thing they are wittering on about.

  14. The real problem by jeremyds · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The real problem is not so much that the Yukon date has slipped, it's that Whidbey (The next version of Visual Studio.NET and the .NET framework) is slipping with it. For who knows what reason, Microsoft decided that these products must be released together. While Yukon promises some very nice features, most people would much rather have Whidbey released now and live with SQL 2000 for awhile longer.

    To top it off, MS is not even going to be releasing any service packs for Visual Studio in the meantime. There are some rather serious issues with the current version of Visual Studio that can only be fixed by calling MS for specific hotfixes. Needless to say, much of the MS developer community is up in arms.

  15. Not a great loss.. SQL2000 is a good product by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Once they got to that version of their SQL product, they got it pretty much right.

    Its one of the few solid things that microsoft puts out. Previous verisons were pretty dismal.

    I doubt that most pepole will ever need the 'new' features coming down the pike. They should leave it alone, instead of screwing it up or bloating it out....

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  16. Re:Mysql, PosteGres, DB2, Oracle MSSQL by AftanGustur · · Score: 2, Interesting


    2. "Ewwww, Java, it sucks, you should rewrite in PHP" I explain it has been continually developed since 96, no way to stop the engine and write in PHP.

    It looks to me that your "25 year old self proclaimed web genius" is exactly that. And doesn't know the first thing about databases, let alone operating systems, process slots, filehandles, semaphore locks, interrupts or Context switches. And is absolutely clueless about how to debug DB performance problems.

    There *is* one thing that MySQL is good at and that is performance. The problem is, people often put MySQL on crappy hardware and have no clue about how the system realy works or how to tune it.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
  17. 'best database around for the price'? by kpharmer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really?

    Is it the best database for a linux or unix shop?
    Is it the best database for large reporting or search applications?
    Is it the best database for projects or companies with a small budget?

    Ah, the answer to all of the above is 'no':
    - zero portability
    - parallelism and partitioning is primitive
    - licensing costs for a 4-way server can easily hit $100k, and in many configurations are more expensive than other top commercial products (db2 for example).

    When it comes to prototyping, sql server is at the top of my list. However, when it comes to delivering powerful capabilities, automating operations, and scripting changes - then it's at the bottom of my list.

    But I will agree with you on the .net stuff - integrating that into the database is a bad idea.

    1. Re:'best database around for the price'? by bucknuggets · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're looking at the price/performance ranking - for oltp applications. SQL Server does have the best numbers there. However, this doesn't reflect best performance for oltp (where they hardly show up at all), and certainly not for searches/reporting (which are reflected in tpc-h). And the only parallel features that I'm aware that they support are in using a set of distributed views to provide a single image of a set of independent servers. This is just a trivial implementation of some of the parallel features that db2 and informix use. It really isn't even in the ballpark for this kind of functionality.

  18. sqlxml by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm going to guess sqlxml performance blows huge chunks. I ran several dozen benchmarks comparing oledb with sqlxml. sqlxml was at best 10x slower than oledb. With 6 concurrent clients hitting sqlserver on a nice 4CPU box, sqlxml was 100x slower. So yeah, there's going to be performance issues. It's called, dump sqlxml or sell yukon with hardware XML accelerators.

  19. Re:It wasn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Probably not the point. Lots of people signed up to Microsoft's software subscription with the belief that updates for many packages, including SQL Server, would be released within the subscription period. Microsoft has now taken their money without providing any meaningful updates. Now their licensees will be presented with another choice: upgrade again or lose your significant investment.

  20. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Nope...didn't think so. You HAVE a rock-solid DB solution from MS right now,

    Is that the DB that lost track of all that nuclear material due to bugs in INSERT. You HAVE several rock-solid databases (see Oracle) right now... why choose a late one with a proven track record of unreliability.

  21. Try Firebird. by ghjm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is the blind spot people have about this?

    Ben is Glory! Wake up people!

    Anyway, check out Firebird. It's way ahead of Postgres on most counts.

    -Graham

  22. GUI's tools for other databases by eberry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Something that helps you craft medium-complicated joins quickly with a few clicks and drags.

    Don't tell me there are developers or DBA's creating stored procedures in this fashion. This is something I expect from one of my lusers using Access. The code this creates is a nightmare.

    However for most other things I like the GUI too. Which is why I downloaded these GUI tools for MySQL.

    --
    Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
  23. Re:That's okay - Holy cow 40 Million lines of code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    eeeeh I duno about that, 40 million lines of code can be easier managed by a team 8x bigger than the team that does Linux just by proportion alone. What I mean by Linux team though is the people that contribute to the Kernel regularly. If a project is well managed, I'd have full faith in its ability to be at least decently coded.

  24. Editorial license by Strudelkugel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Today I learned something about /. editorial policy. When I orginally posted the story, I thought it was interesting from the perspective of what this new disappointment might mean for Steve Ballmer as CEO. All of those comments were deleted from the post, so I guess a story isn't interesting unless it can make Microsoft look bad in some fashion.

    I have a suspicion that institutional investors in Microsoft are having their patience tested with a stock price that hasn't moved, no clear vision being stated by the company (remember .Net everything?) and no official statement about how the cash hoard will be used. Unlike OSS, Microsoft has investors that can and will influence the direction of the company.

    If institutions force Ballmer out, what strategy will Microsoft pursue, and what might this mean for technology? That was the question I wanted to address. Ironically, I even stated in my post that I didn't want this to become another Microsoft v. OSS story, as there are plenty of those already. The business problems of Ballmer might not seem to be a technical story, but I think they absolutely are, as whatever Microsoft does to satisfy its big investors will have great significance for the tech world.

    --
    Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe