Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On

Add to briefcase 123»»»

Developer Deployment Frustrations Expand / Collapse
Posted Tuesday, September 7, 2010 9:23 PM



Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 10:57 AM
Points: 33,268, Visits: 15,438
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Developer Deployment Frustrations

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #982016
Posted Tuesday, September 7, 2010 10:51 PM

Mr or Mrs. 500

Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, August 31, 2014 6:29 PM
Points: 522, Visits: 555
Getting a base install up and running quickly should indeed be the goal of every off the shelf application (I am ignoring in house software quite deliberately).

I just wish it were so.

Ever tried to install enterprise grade software from Cisco or IBM? MS products are a thing of beauty by comparison.

I still pray for the day when they realise that most of us want to get on with the job of using the product rather than being stuck for weeks on end getting the thing installed and configured.

Post #982038
Posted Tuesday, September 7, 2010 11:55 PM

Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, July 25, 2014 5:21 AM
Points: 1,205, Visits: 923
Hi Steve, good article you have here. Microsoft is making it so diffcult for a person to install SQL Server from 2005 upwards. I don't really know the older versions very well except for SQL 7 which I can't say I ever had difficulty installing for my clients. When SQL Server 2008 came out I upgraded a client (small system and database) to SQL Server Express. It took me close to 3 days to get it right and the server was bought new for this purpose. So, no previous installations that had to be upgraded only the database of which I copied the database files to the server from an old computer. I won't even talk about how long it took me to upgrade that. I read all the necessary documentation and eventually got a solution from another website than MS.

Manie Verster
South Africa

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. - Holy Bible
I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times. - Everett Mckinley Dirkson (Well, I am trying. - Manie Verster)
Post #982056
Posted Wednesday, September 8, 2010 12:04 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, December 9, 2013 3:51 PM
Points: 6, Visits: 155
Not sure what the fuss is about. I've been installing just about every version of SQL from v6.5. Not just installing, but remote deployment and packaging with software installations.

The latest SQL Server 2008 R2 is the best installer package I've used to date.

SQL Server is enterprise software, and considering the power it has, the installer is pretty good. Not perfect, but doable with the right amount of research

Post #982060
Posted Wednesday, September 8, 2010 2:34 AM
SSC Journeyman

SSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 26, 2014 5:15 AM
Points: 77, Visits: 94
thought this was a joke to be honest...
but I've read the articles and must agree that the 2008 R2 story is unfortunate at least.

ever tried to install Oracle?
or worse
create a new db based on a backup of another?
and I could give some more examples.

ah man, if there's one point that stands out when comparing sql server to others (eg oracle) it is the managment/installer tools

a developer
Post #982113
Posted Wednesday, September 8, 2010 3:15 AM



Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:39 AM
Points: 5,419, Visits: 3,148
I think that an important point is not to highlight those that do it worse (lowering the bar) but highlight where it could be, and arguably should be, better (raising the bar). It is worth saying that X's installs are easier than Y's to ensure that Y do something about it as opposed to discouraging X from raising the bar further.

In the context of the editorial, I believe that the installation and out of the box maintenance options of the Express edition is what is being considered here. It should be simple to automate an install and configure of Express if it is to form a component of an application like the ones inferred.

Some of the comments appear to suggest that there should be a DBA for these installations or at the very least a developer doing the installation. This will unlikely be the case for the application types I believe was inferred in the editorial. These installations will be of the setup.exe sort (you know, the ones that often pollute the registry). Performed either by users or automated to enterprise desktops. Either way a zero oversight option.


-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Post #982138
Posted Wednesday, September 8, 2010 5:51 AM


Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 4, 2014 5:43 AM
Points: 1,846, Visits: 480
I am a developer. I code in .net, but I also develop in sql server as well. If you ask my opinion, the developers out there that don't like sql server it is because it is different than developing in .net or C or whatever language they are writing code. It is a bit of a step, to think of set based solutions. In most developer languages you don't do a lot with sets of data. You might return a set of data to display, but not like you do in sql. I guess the entity framework allows you to work with sets of data, but so far I haven't enjoyed the entity framework much.

When I first started working with sql 6.5 14 years ago, it was a challenge to change my thinking. I was tempted to say, the DBA has to write all the database code. I am glad I didn't and I am a better developer for knowing sql server and how to develop in it.

Post #982216
Posted Wednesday, September 8, 2010 6:09 AM



Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:04 AM
Points: 2,678, Visits: 19,271
Steve, have you posted this on Connect? Can we get a link to vote for it?

How best to post your question
How to post performance problems
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop

"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
Post #982226
Posted Wednesday, September 8, 2010 6:13 AM

Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 7, 2012 9:23 AM
Points: 304, Visits: 716
I think what you are missing in today's editorial comes only with age - old age that is...

You young folks missed the days when "software developer" meant you knew code, AND database. This is because back in the late 70's and early 80's systems like dBase, Rbase, QNE, and so many others were complete systems - that is they came with a programming language and (for lack of a better term) built-in databases. There was NO configuring SQL, no hassle bundling everything you needed, and no silliness where you had one coder, and one database guy.

Now, we have "advanced" (chuckle intended) to where no one person can whip up a small and successful app and launch it, and potentially build a company behind it. No, we need experts for everything. Where one guy used to be able to build, launch and support a networked application, we now need a team of guys to even get it installed. This is of course "progress".

Worse still, we now have ".NET" and today I still meet with potential clients who will say "It must be .NET..." and then I will ask them 'Do you know what .NET is?' and the answer, 99% of the time is "No, but I know I need it...". In the old days, people just wanted good, user-friendly working systems - now, they know they need something they don't even know the first thing about.

We used to have a market with dozens of development systems, now we have basically two or three and they are all overly complex and horribly splintered. No one person can manage what used to be so simple.

...and we call this progress. For me, looking over my decades in the business, its two steps forward, a hundred backwards as we layer complexity where simplicity would have done nicely.

There's no such thing as dumb questions, only poorly thought-out answers...
Post #982229
Posted Wednesday, September 8, 2010 6:50 AM
Say Hey Kid

Say Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey Kid

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, September 15, 2014 6:18 AM
Points: 662, Visits: 1,671
There is a place for a easy to deploy, middle weight, embeddable database solution like the aging Visual FoxPro or now defunct VistaDB. If Microsoft wants to attract more developers, making the smaller vesions of SQL Server simpler to install and maintain would be a big win. And it would help grow the sales of the large versions.
Post #982248
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 123»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse