Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Brings SQL Server To Linux (betanews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the look-to-the-cloud dept.

Mark Wilson writes: The new Microsoft has place an increased importance on the cloud, and with other companies following suit, reliance on server solutions has increased. Today the company announces that it is bringing SQL Server to Linux. Both cloud and on-premises versions will be available, and the news has been welcomed by the likes of Red Hat and Canonical. Although the Linux port of SQL Server is not due to make an appearance until the middle of next year, a private preview version is being available to testers starting today. While the full launch of SQL Server for Linux is not due until the middle of 2017, SQL Server 2016 is expected to launch later this year.

12 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. Oh Boy! A new MS Licensing Category by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just what Linux needed!

  2. Embrace, extend.... by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It looks like Microsoft is well on their way towards embracing Linux. Of course, what worries me is what comes AFTER embracing and extending. You old-time Slashdotters know what I'm talking about, right?

    --
    Finding God in a Dog
    1. Re:Embrace, extend.... by Nutria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not "embrace, extend, extinguish", but a classic bait ("SQL Server on Linux!!!) and switch ("but if you want all the features, buy Windows Server.")

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re: Embrace, extend.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're managing SQL Server via GUI, you're doing it wrong.

  3. Re:Haha by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the new Slashdot overlords are seeing this:

    Can we please get through April 1st (and the days around it) without any stupid fake / "joke" shit making it to the front page?

  4. The Linux community is extinguishing Linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Microsoft wanted to extinguish Linux, they wouldn't even have to do a damn thing these days.

    The Linux community is doing a superb job of extinguishing Linux all on its own.

    Regardless of what you think about it, systemd has caused massive disruption within the Linux ecosystem.

    The Debian project, which for a long time was the premiere Linux distribution, has been torn apart by its decision to use systemd.

    Lots of other Linux users have had systemd cause them serious problems, including computers that would no longer boot properly.

    Many of these Linux users have chosen to move to FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OS X, and even Windows in some cases.

    And that's all on top of the problems that GNOME 3, NetworkManager, and PulseAudio have caused.

    Then there's the failure of the Wayland project to create a modern replacement for X.

    Each one of these failures has hurt Linux's viability, and there's no end in sight!

    Existing users are being driven away, and there are no new users replacing them.

    1. Re:The Linux community is extinguishing Linux. by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All examples of the second system effect. Bloated elephantine solutions to simple problems.

      PulseAudio is much worse than OSS. All we needed was mixing. Instead, because they hated the OSS dev, they wrote ALSA (which was a mess). At one point Linus was actively refusing to include ALSA in the kernel. He only accepted it after OSS had no developer. BSD continued using OSS, rewrote the code, added mixing and it works fine there. Because ALSA was a mess from the userspace all sorts of bloated userspace APIs grew on top of it including PulseAudio. That latency addicted sound system. I still remember when I thought OpenAL was going to be *the* user space API. It did everything one needed and it was open-sourced by creative. But for whatever godforsaken reason someone had to come up with PulseAudio and make that standard.

      People have been trying to replace X since it came out. The fact is X is perfectly fine as an architecture. Perhaps the higher-end elements of the API don't need to be there (e.g. Xt) but the alternatives to replace X11 proper have lasted less than X has.

      As for systemd... All I want to know is why I need to reboot my OS every time I do an Ubuntu update. It didn't use to be necessary. Linux has dynamic loadable module support, every app used to be able to be clearly shutdown and restarted. So why the going back to the Microsoftian past and away from UNIXian roots?

    2. Re:The Linux community is extinguishing Linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Systemd has nothing to do with the kernel. Seems the one spreading fud and trolling is you, not parent poster.

      OSS still works, ALSA just just fine and plays well together with, for example jack.

      Now along comes pulseaudio, like an elephant in a porcelain cabinet. It breaks everything that works. It has latency like hell. Depsite being userland and taking full control of all hardware, it still crashes like hell, needs restarts - admittingly later versions got a bit better as far stability goes but for some reasons distributions like to stick to old stuff.
      Pulseaudio is broken like hell. It doens't play nice with other software, causing more problems than it solves. It already has it's tentacles everywhere, be it bluetooth or desktop or other packages, that somehow need a pulse-related library even if it's not used. It's instable. It's gui is user-unfriendly, both noob and pro users, and it needs the console for better configuration, module loading and other stuff. You can (try to) disable it, or selected sound cards, while it's installed, but will still manage to bork your system. The only fix for pulseaudio is a apt-get autoremove pulseaudio.
      We have mixing. We have a fine volume control. The idea behind pulse-audio, userland volume control and patching, is nice, but worked out badly. I do not dislike pulseaudio per-se as it also has lots of uses. But it's far from finished and at least up to version 6 it's buggy as hell.

      Now, this same person that devved pulseaudio, would have had my respect if he stayed on the project and actually fixed all shit that is broken. Instead, he went to a new project which gives me the impression that instead only audio, my entire system is about to get borked.

      That is primary fear that people have and they are _right_. Not every situation requires fast boot times. On my desktop, i don't care at all as it's easy to just go for another distro or upgrade whenever i feel like. For the average server or serious workstation, there are entire other priorities than shaving off 5 second boottime, which is effectively all that systemd is good for.

      I'm not lover or hater. I love that people put work in possibly important projects. But i also do like that the basic components i actually need and use work as intended. That, is why it always should be an option. Pulse is fine - as option. Systemd is fine - as an option. Remove the optionality and people are getting rightfully upset. And both mentioned projects by same person seem to have same attitude regarding that - removing optionality and taking over - as an all or nothing deal. That's the real issue here.

  5. Re:Postgresql by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And performance, and scalability, and encryption, and replication, and backup / restoration, and reporting / analysis, and tuning / optimization, and...

    MS wears some big ol' clown shoes (see my recent submission about the botched Win 10 update), but SQL Server, with all its various components, is an industry-leading product for good reason. The only other solution I've seen serious people use is Oracle, and they only admit to it sheepishly, like a shamed victim.

  6. Re:But what I want in Linux is MS Access by halivar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If PostgreSQL is fine for you, you are not the target market for SQL Server, anyway. Before now, customers who needed *real* scalability had only one choice: Oracle.

  7. Re:Postgresql by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    TL;DR version:

    Q: What does Stored Procedures provide that you don't get with PostgreSQL functions?
    A: A pricetag.

    I'm not really sure if you are arguing for or against MS SQL Server.

  8. Re:But what I want in Linux is MS Access by Voyager529 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh god... please end it now. As someone that has had to deal with end user generated 'applications' spreading Access is both a crime against humanity and nature.

    "Spreading Access"...yeah, you're right. However, you've missed the essence of what the GP was getting at. Access allows for information to be grouped and displayed easily, without having to write any code, and some minimal code will goes a long way to automation. "Yet Another Centralized Database That Requires An HTML/CSS/JS Frontend To Be Useful" isn't going to stand out nearly as well as something that does what Access does, better than how Access does it.