5 ms·

Certainly it's the right direction, but, you have to wonder about a company that took until 2016 to realize that Linux was an important platform to support for

Certainly it's the right direction, but, you have to wonder about a company that took until 2016 to realize that Linux was an important platform to support for an enterprise RDBMS.

SCHiM 11y ago
It might have hurt them, we'll never know. But they made it until 2016 with that attitude, so it's not like they _needed_ to realize anything.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
abrookewood 11y ago
They've known Linux was an important enterprise platform for decades - they just didn't want to admit it openly or contribute to its success.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Decades? Linux was a bit of a blip in 1996.. FreeBSD on the other hand was clear competition at the time.
tomschlick 11y ago
I think it was more about a certain bone/bald headed CEO being stubborn.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  Ten years ago, Windows was a major component of Microsoft's revenue. They felt they needed to protect it. Today, it is not huge (and the enterprise cloud is). So the decisions at the time and now make sense. Microsoft is becoming IBM. http://www.computerworld.com/article/3041378/microsoft-windows/microsoft-doesn-t-need-windows-anymore.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/3041378/microsoft-windo...
jonknee 11y ago
They certainly realized it many years ago, but they also sold the major competing OS. I'm sure it was a huge battle with the Windows Server team to get this done.
orionblastar 11y ago
I think they ported to Linux because Linux is being used by startups instead of Windows Server and they wanted them to use their SQL Server database instead of MySQL or PostgreSQL so they can sell tech support for SQL Server. Keep in mind that Microsoft sells tech support to companies with a special hotline they can call and get answers and support for enterprise level software. Porting SQL Server to Linux means more copies of SQL Server being used out there and more tech support phone calls that companies pay for. With Office 2000 there was the MSDE on the CD-ROM that had a developer version of SQL Server that could run on Windows 2000 Pro to test out databases without using Windows Server. It was limited in number of connections and other things.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Can't speak for others... but I'd definitely be inclined to reach for MS-SQL server before any other commercial SQL option (including EnterpriseDB). That said, SQL is rarely the first tool I look for regarding my DB needs.

Certainly it's the right direction, but, you have to wonder about a company that took until 2016 to realize that Linux was an important platform to support for an enterprise RDBMS.

SCHiM 11y ago

It might have hurt them, we'll never know. But they made it until 2016 with that attitude, so it's not like they _needed_ to realize anything.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

abrookewood 11y ago

They've known Linux was an important enterprise platform for decades - they just didn't want to admit it openly or contribute to its success.

tracker1 11y ago
Decades? Linux was a bit of a blip in 1996.. FreeBSD on the other hand was clear competition at the time.

tomschlick 11y ago

I think it was more about a certain bone/bald headed CEO being stubborn.

ktRolster 11y ago
Ten years ago, Windows was a major component of Microsoft's revenue. They felt they needed to protect it. Today, it is not huge (and the enterprise cloud is). So the decisions at the time and now make sense. Microsoft is becoming IBM. http://www.computerworld.com/article/3041378/microsoft-windows/microsoft-doesn-t-need-windows-anymore.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/3041378/microsoft-windo...

jonknee 11y ago

They certainly realized it many years ago, but they also sold the major competing OS. I'm sure it was a huge battle with the Windows Server team to get this done.

orionblastar 11y ago

I think they ported to Linux because Linux is being used by startups instead of Windows Server and they wanted them to use their SQL Server database instead of MySQL or PostgreSQL so they can sell tech support for SQL Server. Keep in mind that Microsoft sells tech support to companies with a special hotline they can call and get answers and support for enterprise level software. Porting SQL Server to Linux means more copies of SQL Server being used out there and more tech support phone calls that companies pay for. With Office 2000 there was the MSDE on the CD-ROM that had a developer version of SQL Server that could run on Windows 2000 Pro to test out databases without using Windows Server. It was limited in number of connections and other things.

tracker1 11y ago
Can't speak for others... but I'd definitely be inclined to reach for MS-SQL server before any other commercial SQL option (including EnterpriseDB). That said, SQL is rarely the first tool I look for regarding my DB needs.