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."

14 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!

  4. 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....
  5. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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!

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. '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.

  12. 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