8 ms·
Why dont they just change to an open source rdbms?
by ColdAsIce 15y ago
Why dont they just change to an open source rdbms?
- jonursenbach 15y agoThey're fairly tightly integrated into the MS stack and it'd be an incredible undertaking to migrate to anything else.
- th5 15y agoyou would think MS would cut them a super deal on licensing, being that S.O. is such a major site utilizing and promoting their platform, (and its demographics match who they'd want to promote to). If S.O. goes down or has problems due to a SQL server issue like this, (or them not affording another license) that looks pretty bad.
- dan_b 15y agoI believe Joel said that software licenses were a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.
- bunderbunder 15y agoI'm inclined to agree. If you have to spend any time at all figuring out how to fit the cost of a SQL Server license into your business plan, that's the entrepreneurial equivalent of a code smell.
- justincormack 15y agoNot sure MS cares enough about SQL server. They would probably throw money at them to move to Azure though.
- hristov 15y agoProbably because Joel Spolsky is a Microsoft guy. He used to work there and was apparently quite influential before he left.
- joshu 15y agoFor what it's worth, the word "just", as used above, almost always indicates that the speaker doesn't understand the problem.
- dagw 15y agoThere is nothing 'just' about moving a non-trivial database from one rdbms to another. First there is no doubt a huge amount of incompatibility between the dialect of SQL the two speak. Then there's all the platform specific features that the other database is either lacking or implement completely differently. On top of that, once you get everything up and running, you'll notice that the performance characteristics between the two are very different which means you're going to have to redo much of your optimization work to get back to even close to the level of performance you had before the switch.