Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Data Storage

New SQL Server Release Slips to 2005 430

Posted by michael 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New SQL Server Release Slips to 2005 More

New SQL Server Release Slips to 2005

Comments Filter:

  • That's okay (Score:2, Interesting)

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

    Who needs all that integrated .NET stuff anyway?

    • Re:That's okay (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Manip ( 656104 )
      MySQL is the best database around for the price actually!

    • Re:That's okay (Score:5, Informative)

      by next1 ( 742094 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:50AM (#8567271) Journal
      i think you'll find PostgreSQL [postgresql.org] is also pretty good value for money!

      • Re:That's okay (Score:3, Informative)

        by vf123 ( 244292 )
        I agree, you can bash Microsoft all you want just because that's who they are, but don't bring up MySQL as an alternative to any real database, be it oracle, postgres or mssql.

      • Re:That's okay (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kannibal_klown ( 531544 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @10:48AM (#8568569)
        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".

    • Re:That's okay (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BoomerSooner ( 308737 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:04AM (#8567650) Homepage Journal
      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?

      • Oracle and DB2 (Score:3, Informative)

        by IO ERROR ( 128968 )
        Did you know: If you're a developer you can get a free development license for Oracle and/or DB2.

        Download Oracle [slashdot.org] or DB2 [ibm.com] today.

        This is really helpful if you want to play around or learn them, but you need to have a pretty big machine to put them on. Figure on 1GB RAM, 2GB swap and at least 20GB disk, just to play around with ONE of them. Then add in the size of the data you'll be working with...

    • Re:That's okay (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Because SQL Server 2000 is pretty much the best database around...

      I especially like that feature where every SQL Server communicates with each other... what's it called? Oh yeah, SQL SLAMMER. ;)

    • 'best database around for the price'? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kpharmer ( 452893 ) * on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:44AM (#8567954)
      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.

  • Yukon's promised features (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BigHungryJoe ( 737554 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:38AM (#8567225) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:Yukon's promised features (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Florian Weimer ( 88405 ) <fw@deneb.enyo.de> on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:03AM (#8567334) Homepage
      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.
      • 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-con

  • What ... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fewnorms ( 630720 )
    ... 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

    • Re:What ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Saint Stephen ( 19450 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:45AM (#8567257) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Re:What ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:56AM (#8567602)
        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.

        • Re:What ... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by blowdart ( 31458 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:05AM (#8567658) Homepage
          Run C# code directly, the same code being ever more integrated into yukon.

          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.

    • it seems to be the trend at MS currently to announce new software and then postponing it due to "problems"

      That trend started long ago in a galaxy quite close.

      The filesystems as database feature has been touted for NT, Xp and now Longhorn.

      Software companies are in a dilemma, dammned if you pre-announce, dammned if you don't.

      Following their roadmap is the road to hell.

      and grrrr lose not loose, fool

    • Re:What ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 4b696e67 ( 670803 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:53AM (#8567286)
      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.

      • Re:What ... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by M1FCJ ( 586251 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:32AM (#8567461) Homepage
        MS SQL Server's "corporate" competitor is Oracle 9i. Oracle will beat a SQL Server hands down in any scenario unless it is a small database system, if that's the case there's no point using SQL Server, you can use MSDE or any freeware product. Postgres (last time when I had a look at it under Windows) runs on top of Cygwin and horrendously slow unlike its Unix-compatible brother. MySQL can be used but what's the point if you have already decided to use a toy database, you shouldn't use SQL Server, go and use MSDE instead, or Access. Most used MySQL is 3.x family and it used to not support lots of features (all changed in 4.x but are we being adventorous today?).

        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.

  • OSS Opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by benjiboo ( 640195 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:41AM (#8567235)
    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 [microsoft.com] is going to be built on the same technology.

    • Re:OSS Opportunity (Score:3, Interesting)

      by spells ( 203251 )

      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.

    • Editorial license (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Strudelkugel ( 594414 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @11:08AM (#8568768)

      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.

  • but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mr_tommy ( 619972 ) <tgrahamNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:41AM (#8567237) Journal
    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.

    • except... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:47AM (#8567260)
      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.
    • Think of it this way. If you were a teacher, which student would you prefer? The one that handed in all their projects on time and done extremely well, or the one that decides "Well I need more time for the project to make it better" and then hands it in months later worse off than any of the other projects you've already received months before?

      We shouldn't "support" microsoft for this unless they come out with one hell of a product in the end (and we know they won't.)

      • Re:but (Score:4, Insightful)

        by GeckoX ( 259575 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:57AM (#8567609)
        Get off your high horses people (not just you, all the posters along this vein).

        Look, what are you waiting for in the next release of SQLServer? Anything? Nope...didn't think so.
        You HAVE a rock-solid DB solution from MS right now, so who cares if the next release from MS is late, especially when it represents a fundamental change, and thus nothing you're doing _right now_ will suffer if it's not out next week will it?

        Damned, the only thing I know of that's being worked on that requires this to be released is WinFS, which will be released in Longhorn when? A couple more years you say?

        Besides, when was the last time your OSS project of choice went gold on time? And no, not having release deadlines doesn't count.

    • Re:but (Score:2, Funny)

      by pubjames ( 468013 )
      One thing anyone in the IT business should learn is to never ever under estimate microsoft.

      A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now my response is:

      Ooooh Microsoft is mad at me, I'm so scared! Microsoft is coming to get me! Oh no, don't let Microsoft come after me! They're so big and strong! Oh, protect me from Microsoft!

      (Thanks to MrBurns)

  • Like what? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sla$hd0tSux0r ( 762264 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:42AM (#8567241)
    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!
    • starts with an 'O' but ends in 'racle' instead of 'SS'.

      There's one entity that could actually consider this an opportunity.

    • Re:Like what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:03AM (#8567332)

      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?

      • Re:Like what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by khuber ( 5664 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:37AM (#8567486)
        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.

        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.

  • maybe (Score:4, Interesting)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:42AM (#8567242)
    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.

    • Re:maybe (Score:3, Insightful)

      by will_die ( 586523 )
      The main complaints are not this, it is that many companies paid huge amounts of money on licenses because microsoft said the give me every update license would be cheaper then purchasing the upgrades when the product was released. Now they have paid thier money and they are getting nothing.
      Meanwhile some of poor DBA have to work with a product which was lacking major database capabilites when it was released, and now have to tell managers they the capabilities and money they were expecting for 2004 will
  • 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.

  • Actualy kind of sad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cesaro ( 78578 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:45AM (#8567251) Journal
    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.
    • You forgot your tages when posting this....

    • Re:Actualy kind of sad (Score:4, Interesting)

      by aclarke ( 307017 ) <spam.clarke@ca> on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:23AM (#8567412) Homepage
      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.

      • Re:Actualy kind of sad (Score:3, Informative)

        by MattRog ( 527508 )
        You can take a look at Sybase ASE which runs on Linux, Windows, Solaris, etc.. As I'm sure you are aware Sybase wrote the original SQL Server and licensed it to Microsoft. When they split (around version 6.5 I think) Microsoft took the SQL Server name.

        In any rate, Sybase ASE uses the T-SQL dialect and also has many of the same stored procedures for system administration.

      • Re:Actualy kind of sad (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Malc ( 1751 )
        Either you have poor network security (i.e. your SQL Server installation was directly exposed to the internet), or poor network administration (i.e. your network was already infected by Slammer).

        We had an incompetent admin and were vulnerable to Slammer for over a year on four major DB servers at our colo facility. Even though our new admin compared the firewall to sieve, it was still secure enough to protect us. I think we were vrey lucky, but I find it hard to believe that you can bring up SQL Server i

  • Meanwhile, MySQL does transactions (Score:5, Informative)

    by ka9dgx ( 72702 ) * on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:45AM (#8567254) Homepage Journal
    Meanwhile, MySQL [mysql.com] is now doing transactions, and VIEWs are on their way in 5.1. It's GPL, so it's free (as in speech).

    --Mike--

    • 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.

    • Re:Meanwhile, MySQL does transactions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bwalling ( 195998 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:05AM (#8567341) Homepage
      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.
      • I think it's the same reason that people will insist on MS, i.e. the "know" MS so assume it has best solution for the job.

        The same with MySQL, at around 1999 when I first started to look at doing some (very simple) database work it was the most developed thing you could get for free. At that time, Postgres was not optimised for speed and was still regarded as research product.

        Anyhow, the situation has changed somewhat but some people still think it's 1999, of course most of these people are n't RDBMS peo

      • Re:Meanwhile, MySQL does transactions (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dan Ost ( 415913 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:48AM (#8567546)
        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.

    • Re:Meanwhile, MySQL does transactions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cruachan ( 113813 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:09AM (#8567359)
      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.

      • Re:Meanwhile, MySQL does transactions (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mborland ( 209597 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:54AM (#8567598)
        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'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.

  • MS helping OSS - Indirectly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by UltimaGuy ( 745333 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:45AM (#8567256) Homepage
    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.

  • Does this sound familiar? (Score:4, Funny)

    by fataugie ( 89032 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:47AM (#8567261) Homepage
    Microsoft (circa 2001): "With this new licensing model, you buy "software assurance" so if a new version is released in the next two years, you're entitled to a free upgrade"

    Uh huh...I see that's working out nicely...

  • Just More Validation for OSS Model (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:50AM (#8567270)
    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,

  • Past tense? (Score:5, Informative)

    by LarsWestergren ( 9033 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:52AM (#8567274) Homepage Journal
    "Early adoption of Yukon in enterprises was quite strong due to the functions and features [..]"

    How can you talk about functions and features of software that has not yet been released? How can companies "early adopt" vaporware?

    Yes, they can order in advance, but to me "adoption" means running something as a part of your business. Not "planning to maybe use it once you get it and if it turns out to be as good as you was promised it would be".

  • Can't screw up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peterdaly ( 123554 ) <petedaly@@@ix...netcom...com> on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:54AM (#8567292)
    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

  • Mysql, PosteGres, DB2, Oracle MSSQL (Score:5, Informative)

    by puto ( 533470 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:57AM (#8567307) Homepage
    It is really funny the level of fervor behind Mysql. So funny it makes you wonder if the zealots have ever used anything other to any real extent.

    The company I work for software's backend can go Mysql, Postgres, Mssql, Db2, or Oracle.

    For massivce connections, queries, reporting, reliability it is in this order.

    1. Mssql, DB2, Oracle, all pretty much equal.
    2, Postegres, tricky but holds its own.
    3. Mysql, will work in the low end, forget reporting, forget huge db hits.

    I like Mysql. But Mssql 7.0 hands its ass to it.

    What happens is some company will be our product. Hand it over to some 25 year old self proclaimed web genius to install. Conversation is as follows.

    1. "Can I have the Source?" No, it is closed, long discussion about how we suck cause our product isn't open source.
    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.
    4."I decided to save the company some money and install Mysql" We say ok, explain issues, put them in an email and fax(CYA principle). I then advise to run Postegre, that it is more robust, and is FREE as well.

    No one lists. Junior installs on Mysql, everything runs fine, site gets huge amount of traffic, database gets quirky. Management starts running huge queries on database reporting tool. Database is very slow to respond, then in a few weeks keels over.

    We get called. Tech is yelling, my guys are smirking(but still polite on phone) Management, myself, and tech gets on conference. Tech starts berating me. Management starts berating me. I pull out magic email and fax with all my system recquirements, suggestions for optimal use. Hey, guess what I was write. Wait a minute, shouldn't I know best since I work for the company that writes and support the product?

    Three times a week this happens with Mysql. We have 14000 customers and I swear 50 percent have some guy that thinks he knows best.... knows our product better, knows computers better...

    This is a great example of where our community needs to clean up its act. And I thought I would never say that.

    Mysql is good for what it is, but there are many things it is not. Learn this.

    Puto

    • Slashdot - MySQL? (Score:4, Informative)

      by pdjohe ( 575876 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:32AM (#8567465)
      Isn't Slashdot run on MySQL [slashdot.org]?

      • Re:Slashdot - MySQL? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Nick of NSTime ( 597712 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @11:38AM (#8569055)
        Yes. MySQL allows duplicate keys.

      • Re:Slashdot - MySQL? (Score:3, Flamebait)

        by bonch ( 38532 )
        You think Slashdot is some sort of example of efficiency and speed?

        My god, thinking about Slashcode alone makes my eyes bleed. I don't even want to think about their InnoDB setup.

        I remember some guy posted about how switching to CSS would save around 20-40% or so of bandwidth. Taco's response? "Submit a patch if you want." So we're stuck with HTML 3.2 because Taco is a lazy ass who doesn't want to fix it himself.

      • Re:Slashdot - MySQL? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Chester K ( 145560 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @07:25PM (#8573973) Homepage
        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.

    • 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 a

      • Re:Mysql, PosteGres, DB2, Oracle MSSQL (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 15, 2004 @10:59AM (#8568675)
        > 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.

  • Horrible Name (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mwilliamson ( 672411 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:13AM (#8567378) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • SQL 2005 & VS.NET 2005 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by samsmithnz ( 702471 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:23AM (#8567413) Homepage
    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!

  • SQL Server 2005, Visual Studio 2005 (Score:5, Informative)

    by pmsyyz ( 23514 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:27AM (#8567433) Homepage Journal

    CNET News reported five days ago on the 10th that both Yukon and Whidbey would be delayed and their final names. They need that time if they are going to clean up the shit HTML and JS outputed by VS. Not that they will, that would allow people to use Firefox.

    The company said Wednesday that it has decided to push out to the first half of 2005 the delivery of the next major edition of SQL Server, code-named Yukon, and a closely related update to Visual Studio.Net, called Whidbey. Until recently, the company had said that both products would ship by the end of this year.

    The final product names for Yukon and Whidbey will be SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio 2005, said Tom Rizzo, director of product management for SQL Server.

    Microsoft delays database, tools delivery [com.com]

  • marketing survey (Score:3, Interesting)

    by martin ( 1336 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `cesxam'> on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:49AM (#8567560) Journal
    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.

  • Some of that Spit and Polish (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phrogz ( 43803 ) <!@phrogz.net> on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:05AM (#8567656) Homepage

    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 [phrogz.net] 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.

  • The real problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jeremyds ( 456206 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:31AM (#8567829)
    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.

    • Re:The real problem (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chester K ( 145560 )
      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.

      The reason they must ship together is because SQL Server is the guinea pig for Whidbey's new hosting interfaces (running an instance of the Framework inside your own non-managed application). This is not a trivial addition to the .NET Framework.

      Check

  • Not a great loss.. SQL2000 is a good product (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:38AM (#8567877) Homepage Journal
    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....

  • It wasn't... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Zebra_X ( 13249 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:45AM (#8567957)
    slated to be released until the last quarter this year. 2005 "sounds bad", but it's only a few months.

  • Please called it MICROSOFT SQL server (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @10:01AM (#8568106) Journal
    Just calling "SQL server" suggests its the only
    program that serves SQL.

  • Old News (Score:3, Informative)

    by sjvn ( 11568 ) <sjvnNO@SPAMvna1.com> on Monday March 15, 2004 @10:03AM (#8568121) Homepage
    The ship date news had already been reported by Mary Jo Foley, The reporter of Microsoft news, on the 10th.

    http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1 54 6601,00.asp

    Steven

  • Why Analysts Suck. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zebra_X ( 13249 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @12:52PM (#8569836)
    from the article Some think Microsoft has bitten off more than it can chew with Yukon. "This product lacks focus," said Betsy Burton, analyst with the Gartner Group. "They're doing all sorts of stuff with it, first scalability was the issue, then XML support, then .Net activities, and then business intelligence and now security. The gut issue is, what is the purpose of this release? As a team trying to develop a product you have to know where you're going," she said

    Betsy clearly has no clue regarding the SQL Server product's evolution, capabilites or how these are going to change with Yukon. In fact she seems to have a very limited grasp of significance of the Yukon's release.

    Unlike Oracle, SQL Server has basically hovered in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" pattern for the last 5 years. For the most part it has delivered a decent database platform, that was for a while more cost effective than oracle. Those who have used SQL Server extensively know it's limitations. Betsy's arguments about "product lacking focus" are rediculous. That's primarily becuase Yukon seeks to rectify a large number of the problems and limitations of SQL Server 2k. It's really very difficult to provide a "focused" look at a product that is changing so significantly. In fact, her complaint is very similar to those that were uttered as Microsfot was trying to formalize the definition of .NET, which really has not clarified itself much in the last two years.

    It would seem that Betsy is looking for are a few jargon sound bytes that can be displayed on a single powerpoint slide. That slide would then be shown to a bunch of people who nod their head and say, "that's a sound strategic driection". Big idea's aren't sound bytes.

    Unfortunately for Microsoft, they are attempting to be ambitious with Yukon. A lot of new plumbing is going in, as well as a refinement and crystalization of the current features such as SQL -> XML queries, DTS, Replication, the integration of a first class programming language among others. These are all features that we've needed for a long time.

    Yukon represents a significant change in the world of RDMS's on the Windows platform. It's sad to see that influential groups such as Gartner can't recognize or have the vision to see how much (and for the better) things are going to change for SQL Server 2K shops.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close