SQL Clone
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


Would You Move to Linux for Price?


Would You Move to Linux for Price?

Author
Message
Steve Jones
Steve Jones
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (462K reputation)SSC Guru (462K reputation)SSC Guru (462K reputation)SSC Guru (462K reputation)SSC Guru (462K reputation)SSC Guru (462K reputation)SSC Guru (462K reputation)SSC Guru (462K reputation)

Group: Administrators
Points: 462586 Visits: 20599
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Would You Move to Linux for Price?

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
Dave Poole
Dave Poole
SSC-Forever
SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 47511 Visits: 3894
I am extremely wary of projected price savings based on the price of an individual item. If the item is stand-a-lone then the price you pay probably is what was advertised on the box but an OS is an emphatically bigger commitment. It is also a slippery slope.

Let's suppose you switch your entire server infrastructure to Linux. From a developers perspective it now makes sense to switch your workstations to Linux or OSX. However, not all your tooling works on Macs and Linux OS's. All of a sudden you have to start scouting for alternatives. If you find the alternatives do they play well together? How much time do you burn because of the friction points introduced by new and different tooling.
What is the skills market like for the chosen tools? Is it easy to recruit/educate and at what price?
Are you looking to embrace open-source because it is perceived as a lower cost cheap option? If you decide to go with commercial support those open-source tools start to look much less of a bargain. What is the quality of support available anyway?
It's all about TCO - Total Cost of Ownership. . Perhaps on a balance sheet something seems to make sense but if you don't look closely at your friction points you can bleed away an immense amount of time and productivity.
If you are already in a mixed Linux/Windows environment I would be looking to experiment with SQL2017 on Linux. If I was in a pure Linux/Mac OSX environment I would be asking what tooling would be available to me and what advantage I would gain adopting SQL Server.
It has to be said that the SQL Server community are exceptional.

LinkedIn Profile
www.simple-talk.com
Dalkeith
Dalkeith
SSCommitted
SSCommitted (1.9K reputation)SSCommitted (1.9K reputation)SSCommitted (1.9K reputation)SSCommitted (1.9K reputation)SSCommitted (1.9K reputation)SSCommitted (1.9K reputation)SSCommitted (1.9K reputation)SSCommitted (1.9K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1937 Visits: 1313

At work definitely NOT. Too many process critical applications that would mean upgrading or changing every single system! that would be far far more costly than any savings obtained. Also we have open source that runs on windows.

At home almost definitely yes.

As we move to Web Applications that are served independently of each other directly to Browser clients which are agnostic to the Server software I can see us slowly buying from third parties applications that may run on the backend on this or building applications fully on those OS's. I hope this will just push MS prices down so all OS operating costs align effectively and makes it less of a competitive issue.

I specifically don't like the idea of FREE - we use QGIS at work basically for zero cost - I really want management to donate to the project - they almost definitely will not. At home I often buy more expensive tools for my shed for tasks that I consider particularly important.




peter.row
peter.row
SSCrazy
SSCrazy (2.5K reputation)SSCrazy (2.5K reputation)SSCrazy (2.5K reputation)SSCrazy (2.5K reputation)SSCrazy (2.5K reputation)SSCrazy (2.5K reputation)SSCrazy (2.5K reputation)SSCrazy (2.5K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 2474 Visits: 536
Dalkeith - Wednesday, May 2, 2018 2:32 AM

At work definitely NOT. Too many process critical applications that would mean upgrading or changing every single system! that would be far far more costly than any savings obtained. Also we have open source that runs on windows.

At home almost definitely yes.

As we move to Web Applications that are served independently of each other directly to Browser clients which are agnostic to the Server software I can see us slowly buying from third parties applications that may run on the backend on this or building applications fully on those OS's. I hope this will just push MS prices down so all OS operating costs align effectively and makes it less of a competitive issue.

I specifically don't like the idea of FREE - we use QGIS at work basically for zero cost - I really want management to donate to the project - they almost definitely will not. At home I often buy more expensive tools for my shed for tasks that I consider particularly important.





At home SQL Server is already free (Developer edition), Windows is cheap, given the amount of time spent using it the cost for a pro version is roughly £0.35p a day in the first year which is peanuts, and after 3 years it's essentially free, not including the major updates we get each year now.
Thom A
Thom A
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (61K reputation)SSC Guru (61K reputation)SSC Guru (61K reputation)SSC Guru (61K reputation)SSC Guru (61K reputation)SSC Guru (61K reputation)SSC Guru (61K reputation)SSC Guru (61K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 61168 Visits: 17763
At work, the answer is no. We're a heavy Windows environment, so integration would be a lot harder than using Windows. We're also heavy users of both SSIS and SSRS; both are currently unavailable on SQL Server on Linux; a huge nail is it's coffin right now.

Would I make the switch else where? Unsure, but probably not. SQL Server on Linux feels far too incomplete as it stands. There's no Linux Management tool at the moment either; SSMS is only available on Windows, and SQL Operations Studio isn't a Management tool and is missing a lot of the functionality that SSMS gives.

Maybe in a few years SQL Server on Linux will be on par, but right now I'm not entertaining it.


Thom~
Excuse my typos and sometimes awful grammar. My fingers work faster than my brain does :-P

Please always remember to encapsulate your code in IFCode Markup. For example [code=sql] [/code].
Click here to read Jeffs Guide on how to post SQL questions, and get swift and helpful answers from the community
jasona.work
jasona.work
SSC-Dedicated
SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (32K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 32888 Visits: 15169
My mindset has always been, use the tools that are right for the job that your team can support. So, if SQL2017 Linux could be shown to be the right tool for the job, and the team had the knowledge in place to support Linux, then yes.

Now, my current employer the answer is likely to be no, we won't go to SQL on Linux any time soon. Some of the reasons being, before we can use a technology, we're required to have someone on the team with relevant certifications. So, as we have no one with Linux certifications, no Linux, full stop. The other reason is, as for Thom A, we also make fairly extensive use of SSIS (not so much SSRS,) so we'd still have to spring for some non-Linux licenses.

Get SSIS / SSRS migrated into Linux, and the equation might change.
Ralph Hightower
Ralph Hightower
SSCommitted
SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1685 Visits: 1345

I've had a Linux system at home, as well as a Solaris system at home. My wife bought me Sun SPARCStation at a company salvage sale for $300 with a CD-ROM, tape drive, and monitor; I bought a SCSI enclosure and added a few more SCSI drives. That Sun system ran for a few years before the monitor died, and later one of the SCSI drives failed. Later, one of the drives in the Linux system started screeching; that was a salvage machine.
I want to keep my UNIX skills up to date. I used UNIX at work long before I started with Windows.
Work is a Windows shop; I installed Cygwin on my system and used awk to migrate user login data from an Active Directory ldif file to convert a system to a vendor cloud system.
Photo of the Sun system: Sun SPARCStation


Summer90
Summer90
SSC-Insane
SSC-Insane (23K reputation)SSC-Insane (23K reputation)SSC-Insane (23K reputation)SSC-Insane (23K reputation)SSC-Insane (23K reputation)SSC-Insane (23K reputation)SSC-Insane (23K reputation)SSC-Insane (23K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 23580 Visits: 4128
We have Linux and Windows server engineers here. My hip shot would be to keep running SQL Server on Windows. To me SQL Server was designed on the Windows platform and all of the features are there if ever needed.
Eric M Russell
Eric M Russell
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (85K reputation)SSC Guru (85K reputation)SSC Guru (85K reputation)SSC Guru (85K reputation)SSC Guru (85K reputation)SSC Guru (85K reputation)SSC Guru (85K reputation)SSC Guru (85K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 85038 Visits: 13697
... For the purpose of a discussion, let's say you run an older version of SQL Server on Windows, like SQL 2000 or 2005. You want to upgrade, but your boss has been worried about costs. Now you see a 30% savings on Linux. Do you consider moving to a Linux OS instead of Windows? ...


For me, Windows is just a container for running SQL Server. Even on my desktop, my work day consists of tabbing between SSMS, Chrome, Slack, and Outlook, and I only occasionally interact with the system settings.

Even Microsoft itself isn't tied to Windows. They are a vast corporate empire with 100,000 IT staff, an ownership stake in a hundred other smaller IT companies, and expertise in practically every technical domain, so they can pretty much win regardless of the playing field.





"The universe is complicated and for the most part beyond your control, but your life is only as complicated as you choose it to be."
ZZartin
ZZartin
SSCoach
SSCoach (18K reputation)SSCoach (18K reputation)SSCoach (18K reputation)SSCoach (18K reputation)SSCoach (18K reputation)SSCoach (18K reputation)SSCoach (18K reputation)SSCoach (18K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 18740 Visits: 15690
No, losing AD authentication in an Enterprise environment is a huge negative if your company is primarily already a MS shop.
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum








































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search