November 20, 2017 at 9:06 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Avoiding Development Taxes
November 21, 2017 at 6:57 am
I think that companies that are on Linux don't necessarily want to pay the SQL Server license costs. Windows server licenses are cheap compared to those of SQL Server. (Unless there's that many people that like SQL Server and detest Windows server. I know Windows 10 "features" have managed to irritate plenty of experienced users.)
If you want to stick to a database or two, you can also stick to a operating system or two. If your staff knows Linux, MySQL, Postgres and SQLite, adding in SQL Server means there's an expensive learning curve. 😛
I like my mostly separate Linux and Windows worlds and can manage them without mixing them together like chocolate cake and Brussel sprouts. I know companies that can handle both. But some of the hybrids purposed by Redmond don't make sense in the OSS world.
November 21, 2017 at 7:36 am
... This is the same reason why I'd say that it's worth sticking with a database platform or two and not experimenting with each new type of system that comes out. If your staff knows SQL Server, then adding in MongoDB or Cassandra means there's a learning curve, or a "tax" as the piece notes, to getting things done. This same tax gets paid with each new vendor, platform, language, or technology you take on. ...
Indeed, most database projects fail due to the team's limited knowledge regarding the database platform rather than any inherent technical limitation of the database platform itself.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
November 21, 2017 at 8:48 am
chrisn-585491 - Tuesday, November 21, 2017 6:57 AMI think that companies that are on Linux don't necessarily want to pay the SQL Server license costs. Windows server licenses are cheap compared to those of SQL Server. (Unless there's that many people that like SQL Server and detest Windows server. I know Windows 10 "features" have managed to irritate plenty of experienced users.)If you want to stick to a database or two, you can also stick to a operating system or two. If your staff knows Linux, MySQL, Postgres and SQLite, adding in SQL Server means there's an expensive learning curve. 😛
I like my mostly separate Linux and Windows worlds and can manage them without mixing them together like chocolate cake and Brussel sprouts. I know companies that can handle both. But some of the hybrids purposed by Redmond don't make sense in the OSS world.
There are plenty of companies that pay the SQL Server cost and the Windows cost, and aren't happy because those are the only Windows boxes in the DC. It's not a hug number in absolutes, but it's large enough that MS made the effort to move here. Those companies want to stick to only *Nix inside their org.
It's not that they can't handle it. They do, but don't like it.
November 21, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor - Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:48 AMchrisn-585491 - Tuesday, November 21, 2017 6:57 AMI think that companies that are on Linux don't necessarily want to pay the SQL Server license costs. Windows server licenses are cheap compared to those of SQL Server. (Unless there's that many people that like SQL Server and detest Windows server. I know Windows 10 "features" have managed to irritate plenty of experienced users.)If you want to stick to a database or two, you can also stick to a operating system or two. If your staff knows Linux, MySQL, Postgres and SQLite, adding in SQL Server means there's an expensive learning curve. 😛
I like my mostly separate Linux and Windows worlds and can manage them without mixing them together like chocolate cake and Brussel sprouts. I know companies that can handle both. But some of the hybrids purposed by Redmond don't make sense in the OSS world.
There are plenty of companies that pay the SQL Server cost and the Windows cost, and aren't happy because those are the only Windows boxes in the DC. It's not a hug number in absolutes, but it's large enough that MS made the effort to move here. Those companies want to stick to only *Nix inside their org.
It's not that they can't handle it. They do, but don't like it.
I guess if they have dedicated applications that only run on SQL Server. Most companies I know aren't that Linux-bound, they usually have some sort of small group of folks that need Windows and it's applications in addition to SQL Server. (There isn't true Excel equivalent in the OSS world.)
Or just spinning SQL Server on Linux in ""Cloud"" is easier than on Windows.
Still somewhere, there has to be a Windows VM or native imagine to manage the SQL Server. SOS and the other ported tools aren't ready for prime time yet.
Or since all the TOP 500 Super Computers are Linux based, maybe SQL Server is a target for one of them... 😛
November 22, 2017 at 2:20 am
I think SQL Server on Linux will present Red-Gate with some interesting challenges. With the shift to Linux servers comes the rise of the Macbook as the developer hardware of choice.
I know some people dual boot their Macbooks with Windows and MacOS but they are the minority.
Most of my development work takes place on an Ubuntu desktop these days and my database IDE needs are almost met by http://www.aquafold.com/aquadatastudio.
I'm a big fan of the Red-Gate tools. Their absence has been one of the hardest parts of shifting to other DB platforms and an OS.
In terms of embracing the DevOps culture in the database space it does require an attitude shift and quite a lot of work to begin with. This shift has to be from "We can't do this because of....." to "In order to do this we have to solve...." and then go out and solve it. Most of the DevOps cultural changes required to include database work are what I would call "worthy challenges".
November 22, 2017 at 12:09 pm
David.Poole - Wednesday, November 22, 2017 2:20 AMI think SQL Server on Linux will present Red-Gate with some interesting challenges. With the shift to Linux servers comes the rise of the Macbook as the developer hardware of choice.
I know some people dual boot their Macbooks with Windows and MacOS but they are the minority.Most of my development work takes place on an Ubuntu desktop these days and my database IDE needs are almost met by http://www.aquafold.com/aquadatastudio.
I'm a big fan of the Red-Gate tools. Their absence has been one of the hardest parts of shifting to other DB platforms and an OS.
I think we'd love to support other platforms, but it's hard. Without MS support on OSX/*nix, it's a difficult ROI from a commercial perspective. Perhaps the SOS tool will change things, but not sure yet.
I wonder how many people really see the Macbook as the item of choices. Their hardware seems to be lagging behind some of the Intel/Win machines.
November 22, 2017 at 4:04 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor - Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:09 PMI think we'd love to support other platforms, but it's hard. Without MS support on OSX/*nix, it's a difficult ROI from a commercial perspective. Perhaps the SOS tool will change things, but not sure yet.I wonder how many people really see the Macbook as the item of choices. Their hardware seems to be lagging behind some of the Intel/Win machines.
I've produced my own version of Sqldoc for RedShift, Vertica and MySql using Python, Pandas and Sqlalchemy libraries. Due to the way I architected the solution adding another DB platform is a case of adding the driver name to the list of drivers in the build file, writing 4 queries that conform to a known contract and an extra case statement in the thing that chooses the driver to use with Sqlalchemy.
The tests all work as before. It took 15 minutes to add support for an additional DB platform.
Obviously I don't know what the source code or architecture of the rest of the Red-Gate tools are but I would be looking to see if .NET core covers the functions I need. . NET core runs on Linux & Macs. The trick is to design something where the cost is mainly in first implementation and subsequent implementations are quick and therefore cheap.
I know that DG relies on tabular data streams but I don't know if that's in .NET core.
December 1, 2017 at 4:49 am
Eric M Russell - Tuesday, November 21, 2017 7:36 AM... This is the same reason why I'd say that it's worth sticking with a database platform or two and not experimenting with each new type of system that comes out. If your staff knows SQL Server, then adding in MongoDB or Cassandra means there's a learning curve, or a "tax" as the piece notes, to getting things done. This same tax gets paid with each new vendor, platform, language, or technology you take on. ...
Indeed, most database projects fail due to the team's limited knowledge regarding the database platform rather than any inherent technical limitation of the database platform itself.
In the relational database world, most database projects fail due to poor design and a lack of understanding of database principles. When the database is viewed as incidental rather than the foundation of the entire application, the prognosis is not good.
December 1, 2017 at 7:29 am
romefor4 - Friday, December 1, 2017 4:49 AMEric M Russell - Tuesday, November 21, 2017 7:36 AM... This is the same reason why I'd say that it's worth sticking with a database platform or two and not experimenting with each new type of system that comes out. If your staff knows SQL Server, then adding in MongoDB or Cassandra means there's a learning curve, or a "tax" as the piece notes, to getting things done. This same tax gets paid with each new vendor, platform, language, or technology you take on. ...
Indeed, most database projects fail due to the team's limited knowledge regarding the database platform rather than any inherent technical limitation of the database platform itself.
In the relational database world, most database projects fail due to poor design and a lack of understanding of database principles. When the database is viewed as incidental rather than the foundation of the entire application, the prognosis is not good.
Database design is a lot like cooking, you should add ingredients because you are familiar with their properties and know the ingredients compliment each other, not because they happened to be whatever was conveniently on hand.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
December 1, 2017 at 7:53 am
Eric M Russell - Tuesday, November 21, 2017 7:36 AM... This is the same reason why I'd say that it's worth sticking with a database platform or two and not experimenting with each new type of system that comes out. If your staff knows SQL Server, then adding in MongoDB or Cassandra means there's a learning curve, or a "tax" as the piece notes, to getting things done. This same tax gets paid with each new vendor, platform, language, or technology you take on. ...
Indeed, most database projects fail due to the team's limited knowledge regarding the database platform rather than any inherent technical limitation of the database platform itself.
I wish there were a plus-1-million button.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 1, 2017 at 11:15 am
romefor4 - Friday, December 1, 2017 4:49 AMIn the relational database world, most database projects fail due to poor design and a lack of understanding of database principles. When the database is viewed as incidental rather than the foundation of the entire application, the prognosis is not good.
Not to sidestep this, but what's a failure in the db world? Genuinely curious what you'd say here.
December 1, 2017 at 11:26 am
Jeff Moden - Friday, December 1, 2017 7:53 AMI wish there were a plus-1-million button.
Write me an editorial on this and maybe I'll make one for you.
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply