7 ms·

Would you yourself actually choose SQL Server on Linux for a project? I'm a big fan of SQL Server but the main thing that hurts it is the cost. Licensing our t

Would you yourself actually choose SQL Server on Linux for a project? I'm a big fan of SQL Server but the main thing that hurts it is the cost. Licensing our two servers today would cost a quarter of a million dollars. The OS cost is a rounding error. If I'm paying that much money for SQL Server I don't think I'd choose the Linux version for at least another 5 years from now. It needs to prove itself and there's almost no benefit to offset the risk.

pcx 11y ago
I think this will be a great option for existing SQL Server users wanting to move to Linux. Looks like MSFT is slowly giving up on Windows Server to some extent. They might be seeing more money in the Cloud business compared to the Server OS business.
- toyg 11y ago
  Or rather hope or predict to see more money. There is a lot of wishful thinking involved in the current shift to the cloud, both from providers and their customers.
gscott 11y ago
For smaller businesses they can join Bizspark and download SQL Server free from msdn and keep it even after the 3 year program ends.
- godzillabrennus 11y ago
  Host companies have to license you a copy through the Microsoft SPLA program.
- robocat 11y ago
  In theory. In practice our hosting provider couldn't do this for us because of their own licencing (or it was too difficult for them to work out). And if you are a start-up, you will upgrade your DB, in which case you might only get a few years free anyway.
natslovR 11y ago
Many of the stability issues I've seen with SQL server have been the fault of the OS or Windows drivers Conversations I had with some senior SQL server team members in the last two years suggested they were ready for no reboot patching but were limited by the OS and felt it was holding them back. If it wasn't for Windows, SQL server uptime would be much better (was the implication) I'm looking forward to trialing it.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
niutech 11y ago
I would never use MS SQL Server unless it is open source. Otherwise you get into vendor lock-in. Microsoft is cunning - they want to tie Linux-based businesses to their (expensive) products for good. But fortunately there is a viable open source alternative - PostgreSQL. http://www.pg-versus-ms.com http://www.pg-versus-ms.com
- philjackson 11y ago
  Out of curiosity, how does OSS prevent vendor lock-in? Are you talking more in terms of support?
  - cies 11y ago
    Anyone can support the OSS product to utmost level by studying the source code (and possibly fixing/modifying it). > Are you talking more in terms of support? Support is not tied to the product's license (which is common for proprietary software).
    - drdaeman 11y ago
      The sad truth is that "anyone can" is frequently still "nobody did, so you're on your own". This well applies to even the most popular pieces of FLOSS. That's still significantly better than "noone but a single vendor can and you're at their mercy", but just being FLOSS doesn't mean it can't suffer from product lock-in, just that with the hurdle being complexity and not copyright.
      - EdHominem 11y ago
        There's always friction, yes, but rarely a lock or you'd simply go into the code and remove it. Natural complexity, when the domain is simply complex to model, can't be gotten rid of regardless of the product.
        drdaeman 11y ago
        Ah, the lock is not something that check the license and tells "oh no you're not allowed". It's a combination of not having something, and complexity to add it. Sometimes, that's because you need something tricky. Sometimes, that's because the project lacks any documentation, is written in a pretty low-level (verbose) language that obscures the high-level picture, and it's hard to figure out how it works. Sometimes, that's because FLOSS != KISS, and there is a lot of FLOSS software that has its own unique proprietary protocols and data formats, and does things in a manner that's completely incompatible and non-interoperable with any other system. I have no clue about MySQL or PostgreSQL internals (actually, I heard a word they're good in this regard), but is the case for various FLOSS projects - I've dug into some and cursed their developers. If you overcame that and made a patch, but it's not accepted by the upstream - there are maintenance costs. How long would you be able to maintain your own fork of a large software project, keeping up with the upstream? I've tried with a few small ones (say, at a small ISP company, I just needed some custom pppd patches for in-house billing logic), and found it to be not a pleasant experience. I believe it's not just because I'm a lazy ass - I saw tons of forks on GitHub that were slowly rotting away, maintained for some time but eventually forsaken by their authors and far behind their upstreams.
dspillett 11y ago
> Would you yourself actually choose SQL Server on Linux for a project? It will significantly reduce the licensing implications of using SQL Server for a small project. I know people who use MSSQL in their day job but postgres/other for personal projects and one of the reasons is needing to license Windows if a personal project becomes public and needs hosting. This way a small project can use SQL Server Express on Linux just as cost free as progres (or mysql if you must) on Linux. The choice of OS will no longer dictates the choice of DB, that decision can be entirely made on the needs of the project and its target users. Small projects using Express edition may grow into larger ones needed standard/enterprise features, and people exposed to SQL Server through projects using it on Linux are less likely to dismiss ti later because the know postgres/other only. I'm not sure how much we'll see brand new larger projects use SQL Server on Linux any time soon though, but I imagine "get them in at the ground floor and create familiarity as early as possible" is the intention here much like cheap educational licensing for Windows, Office, & full VS and the availability of VS Express.
- GFischer 11y ago
  BizSpark is the way Microsoft encourages side projects/startups to use MS SQL, but yes, this removes a hurdle, and separating the choice of OS from the choice of DB is good. That said, I use MS SQL both at work and on my personal projects thanks to BizSpark. There's also Azure, which, to be fair, is still more expensive than an equivalent AWS stack with Postgre or something.
paulryanrogers 11y ago
Wasn't the core of SQL Server actually Sybase?
- danesparza 11y ago
  Kind of. Sybase and Microsoft actually partnered for a while but parted ways in the mid-90's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Server_Enterprise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Server_Enterprise (I actually remember using Sybase SQL server for a while until the tool that would eventually be called Enterprise Manager was released.)
jitbit 11y ago
> Would you yourself actually choose SQL Server on Linux for a project? Well, I might KEEP my SQL Server, but switch from Windows to Linux as the host OS - to save $$ on licensing and hardware.

pcx 11y ago

I think this will be a great option for existing SQL Server users wanting to move to Linux. Looks like MSFT is slowly giving up on Windows Server to some extent. They might be seeing more money in the Cloud business compared to the Server OS business.

toyg 11y ago
Or rather hope or predict to see more money. There is a lot of wishful thinking involved in the current shift to the cloud, both from providers and their customers.

gscott 11y ago

For smaller businesses they can join Bizspark and download SQL Server free from msdn and keep it even after the 3 year program ends.

godzillabrennus 11y ago
Host companies have to license you a copy through the Microsoft SPLA program.
robocat 11y ago
In theory. In practice our hosting provider couldn't do this for us because of their own licencing (or it was too difficult for them to work out). And if you are a start-up, you will upgrade your DB, in which case you might only get a few years free anyway.

natslovR 11y ago

Many of the stability issues I've seen with SQL server have been the fault of the OS or Windows drivers Conversations I had with some senior SQL server team members in the last two years suggested they were ready for no reboot patching but were limited by the OS and felt it was holding them back. If it wasn't for Windows, SQL server uptime would be much better (was the implication) I'm looking forward to trialing it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

niutech 11y ago

I would never use MS SQL Server unless it is open source. Otherwise you get into vendor lock-in. Microsoft is cunning - they want to tie Linux-based businesses to their (expensive) products for good. But fortunately there is a viable open source alternative - PostgreSQL. http://www.pg-versus-ms.com http://www.pg-versus-ms.com

philjackson 11y ago
Out of curiosity, how does OSS prevent vendor lock-in? Are you talking more in terms of support?
- cies 11y ago
  Anyone can support the OSS product to utmost level by studying the source code (and possibly fixing/modifying it). > Are you talking more in terms of support? Support is not tied to the product's license (which is common for proprietary software).
  - drdaeman 11y ago
    The sad truth is that "anyone can" is frequently still "nobody did, so you're on your own". This well applies to even the most popular pieces of FLOSS. That's still significantly better than "noone but a single vendor can and you're at their mercy", but just being FLOSS doesn't mean it can't suffer from product lock-in, just that with the hurdle being complexity and not copyright.
    - EdHominem 11y ago
      There's always friction, yes, but rarely a lock or you'd simply go into the code and remove it. Natural complexity, when the domain is simply complex to model, can't be gotten rid of regardless of the product.
      - drdaeman 11y ago
        Ah, the lock is not something that check the license and tells "oh no you're not allowed". It's a combination of not having something, and complexity to add it. Sometimes, that's because you need something tricky. Sometimes, that's because the project lacks any documentation, is written in a pretty low-level (verbose) language that obscures the high-level picture, and it's hard to figure out how it works. Sometimes, that's because FLOSS != KISS, and there is a lot of FLOSS software that has its own unique proprietary protocols and data formats, and does things in a manner that's completely incompatible and non-interoperable with any other system. I have no clue about MySQL or PostgreSQL internals (actually, I heard a word they're good in this regard), but is the case for various FLOSS projects - I've dug into some and cursed their developers. If you overcame that and made a patch, but it's not accepted by the upstream - there are maintenance costs. How long would you be able to maintain your own fork of a large software project, keeping up with the upstream? I've tried with a few small ones (say, at a small ISP company, I just needed some custom pppd patches for in-house billing logic), and found it to be not a pleasant experience. I believe it's not just because I'm a lazy ass - I saw tons of forks on GitHub that were slowly rotting away, maintained for some time but eventually forsaken by their authors and far behind their upstreams.

dspillett 11y ago

> Would you yourself actually choose SQL Server on Linux for a project? It will significantly reduce the licensing implications of using SQL Server for a small project. I know people who use MSSQL in their day job but postgres/other for personal projects and one of the reasons is needing to license Windows if a personal project becomes public and needs hosting. This way a small project can use SQL Server Express on Linux just as cost free as progres (or mysql if you must) on Linux. The choice of OS will no longer dictates the choice of DB, that decision can be entirely made on the needs of the project and its target users. Small projects using Express edition may grow into larger ones needed standard/enterprise features, and people exposed to SQL Server through projects using it on Linux are less likely to dismiss ti later because the know postgres/other only. I'm not sure how much we'll see brand new larger projects use SQL Server on Linux any time soon though, but I imagine "get them in at the ground floor and create familiarity as early as possible" is the intention here much like cheap educational licensing for Windows, Office, & full VS and the availability of VS Express.

GFischer 11y ago
BizSpark is the way Microsoft encourages side projects/startups to use MS SQL, but yes, this removes a hurdle, and separating the choice of OS from the choice of DB is good. That said, I use MS SQL both at work and on my personal projects thanks to BizSpark. There's also Azure, which, to be fair, is still more expensive than an equivalent AWS stack with Postgre or something.

paulryanrogers 11y ago

Wasn't the core of SQL Server actually Sybase?

danesparza 11y ago
Kind of. Sybase and Microsoft actually partnered for a while but parted ways in the mid-90's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Server_Enterprise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Server_Enterprise (I actually remember using Sybase SQL server for a while until the tool that would eventually be called Enterprise Manager was released.)

jitbit 11y ago

> Would you yourself actually choose SQL Server on Linux for a project? Well, I might KEEP my SQL Server, but switch from Windows to Linux as the host OS - to save $$ on licensing and hardware.