Slashdot Mirror
MSSQL 2005 Finally Released
mnovotny writes "Computerworld reports that Microsoft is finally set to release their belated SQL Server 2005. From the article: 'Despite a two-year delay, several users who have tested the software cited the improved performance and new functionality it brings as positive developments that likely will convince them to upgrade soon.' The free version can be downloaded directly from Microsoft."
Before the Anti-Microsoft redirect gets out. Please take into accounts. Most People who choose MS SQL Server already have a windows network, Oracle is to expensive for their needs, MySQL 5 just was released with most of the functionality that was in MS SQL 2000, Not many good tools for PostGreSQL, Easier to integrate with .NET, and gives PHB the warm and fuzzies. I have been working with MS SQL 2000 and I must say I was surprising pleased with it, other then the POS that is called DTS, I never had any problems with SQL server, with it crashing or problems handling a lot of data, or configuring security. My only Fear with MS SQL 2005 is that it will break so much compatibility that we well need to redo a lot of stored procedures and all our working around for DTS.
MS SQL Server Yes it is closed sources, I don't know what type of security holes they will find in it, It is defiantly bloated because it will not fit 5 1/2 single density floppy disk with enough rooms for a 2000 record table. If you already have MS SQL 2000 and in a year or so you need to upgrade it will probably be easer to go to 2005 them migrating to the others.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The limited stored proc language that SQL server had before was actually a good thing; you could do some limited stuff in the DB. Thus, you weren't often able to give in to the tendency to stick application logic in the database tier.
And this quote pretty much says it all: Raichura said the support for Microsoft's Common Language Runtime technology via Visual Studio will let him avoid having to go to multiple developers with different specialties. "I can natively write stored procedures straight into software," he said. "This increases my resource pool because it reduces the distinction between software developers and architects."
Read: Now, I can pay people less to create a complete fucking pigsty that will perform well enough that the app will appear largely stable.
Free? Only if you buy their other products.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Clearly, this (as well as news of Oracle's "free/lite" version of 10g), are good news... that Open Source projects like MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL, etc are forcing the "cathedral" software shops to re-examine their ways, since they (Microsoft & others) can't rely on piracy anymore (due to impacted profits) to keep the "pipeline full" and "mindshare". It's good for the closed source developers, and ultimately it will be good for OSS developers, as OSS entries in these fields mature. Competition is good, and the developers benefit.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
And paint them even further into a corner such that migration to another DB is next to impossible.
It's used as the eternal carrot... to keep the CTO from moving to a competetor's product that's already there and better. As long as 'real soon now' continues to inch ever closer, you can keep this up for an incredible length of time.
The mantra is: It's easier to stay with our junky product for X months than to go through the pain of migrating to their superior product. -- then, 6 months later, it's X-2 months.
If it finally comes out missing a couple of promised features (cut because 'we had to finally ship something!'), that's OK because it'll be in the next release ((due in X months).
Rinse-repeat.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
You must not be into Object Oriented programming where you separate out the logic into tiers: Persistence Layer, Biz Logic Layer and Presentation Layer. Also, you must have been a DB admin before you were an app developer. Or maybe you've never been an app developer.
The MiniMSFT blog you link to has a tendancy to report the negatives only. For instance, the blog post links to Wesner Moise's post regarding some VS 2005 bugs he'd found. What is not as well publicized is Wesner's next post, in which he says,
"Despite the few hiccups, I am enjoying VS 2005 and have been able to work with it productively. VS 2005 is stable and performant, and it's better to have it arrive now rather than later. The runtime is solid, and various products across Microsoft and outside also depend on it being delivered on a timely basis."
Yes, I've found a few minor hiccups in VS2005 as well. But honestly, it's nothing like MiniMSFT would have it seem. I can't speak for everyone, but VS2005 has been solid for us since RTM (we were a MS beta tester from Beta 1 through RTM), and we're very happy with its current form.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
It is pretty easy to scale most things in a big n-tier system. Just buy more servers. The database however is really hard to scale. You quickly get to a point where twice the money will buy you only very little extra performance.
Therefore I treat the database as the "sacred resource". This almost always means that business logic is kept outside the database.
Your approach was right in the 80's when client/server was the norm. Today you should have an n-tier system and have the business logic in an application server.
You can still have lots of different applications while using centralized code. Only, now you call the application server instead of the database.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!