I've been having a bit of a debate with myself, which isn't as funny as it sounds. I don't talk out loud to myself, so it probably looks like I'm just sitting there not doing anything :)
OK, occasionally I'm not doing anything, but I'm often trying to actually get a few things done. This topic, however, has got me a little stumped and confused, so I'll put it out there for you all to debate and convince me one way or the other. Or convince someone else. Or maybe even get Microsoft to think about what they are doing.
Boycott SQL Server 2008
So it was suggested to me because of the lack of new Service Packs and even work being done on SQL Server 2005, the quick pace of new versions, and the big changes between versions, that we initiate a boycott of SQL Server 2008 until Microsoft gets their act together. I'm sure that some people won't have a choice, but if a significant number of you can avoid purchasing SQL Server 2008, and recommending against it, then maybe we can get Microsoft to listen to us as a large user base rather than a few million individual customers.
Now I think this isn't necessarily a bad idea. I'd like to get soem promises of support, just like we have monthly security patches for all Microsoft patches, some type of regular patch cycle. I think that we should have
- guaranteed mainstream support life cycles for 2 versions, which isn't the case now. SQL Server 2000 ends support this week (April 8th) and there's no word of an extension. No product should go out of support until the second version past it RTMs.
- A schedule of regular service packs. One a year, I'd prefer 2, but something regular.
- Service Packs throughout the life cycle. So when we have support ending, like SQL Server 2000 is ending, we get one last Service Pack at some point within 6 months of support ending
There might be a few more things, but these are the big ones for me, and I think most people. We want stability in the product and as it matures, with the core platform meeting more and more of our needs, stability means more than new features.
However I'm torn with this. Honestly I'd rather boycott SQL Server 2011, which might be another 1.0 product. I still see SQL Server 2005 as a 1.0 version of a CLR based RDBMS. SQL Server 2008 is the 2.0 version that learns from the problems of 2005, adds new features, and cleans up the code. I think SQL Server 2008 will do this, and while it has lots of new, interesting features, I'm also concerned that PBM, the Resource Governor, and more are 1.0 features that might bite some of us in the rear. Overall, my guess is that most of us will use the base functionality and SQL Server 2008 will be an improvement in the overall quality of the platform.
As a trade off, I'm perfectly willing to accept a 30 month release cycle, meaning a 5 year support time frame for each version. It's still quick, but it's something we can deal with. Heck, I might even support an 18 month R2 release of all versions as well.
So what do you think? Should we boycott SQL Server 2008? Are there features you need in the product? Do you know that many of the really cool features (compression, resource governor, etc) are Enterprise only features? Can you keep running on SQL Server 2000? Let us know.
Steve Jones
PS: Vote for Service Pack 3 for SQL Server 2005. Right now there are no plans to release it. We need your vote so Microsoft will build it.
The Voice of the DBA Podcasts
The podcast feeds are now available at sqlservercentral.podshow.com to get better bandwidth and maybe a little more exposure :). Comments are definitely appreciated and wanted, and you can get feeds from there.
Overall RSS Feed:
or now on iTunes!
Today's podcast features music by Everyday Jones. No relation, but I stumbled on to them and really like the music. Support this great duo at www.everydayjones.com.
I really appreciate and value feedback on the podcasts. Let us know what you like, don't like, or even send in ideas for the show. If you'd like to comment, post something here. The boss will be sure to read it.
