3 ms·

Microsoft has a history of sales and support that will allow them a certain longevity. They also have less "brand hate" than Oracle. I dont think MSSQL is going

Microsoft has a history of sales and support that will allow them a certain longevity. They also have less "brand hate" than Oracle. I dont think MSSQL is going to be like Sybase any time soon, but I probably wouldn't focus on that stack starting now if you are into the startup or california scene. For many places in the USA, MS is the way to go. EDIT: Also, most DB users don't need global-scale databases.

Godel_unicode 10y ago
Not sure if this is what you intended, but you are aware that SQL server was developed in partnership with Sybase until the mid-90s (when they were substantially the same product) right?
- aaronblohowiak 10y ago
  Neat history! I was not aware of that! I meant to imply that sybase's rdbms offering is no longer a big player and I would not want to bet the future of my career on being an expert in it.
mistermann 10y ago
I'm not saying MS is going to abandon the platform, but to me it seems entirely possible that "very soon" these cloud platforms using cheap, shared, commodity hardware might be so affordable and technically capable that it might be a no brainer choice unless you have a very good reason to use MSSQL (kind of the opposite today, on-prem by default, cloud if necessary).
- jksmith 10y ago
  What it will do is encourage MSFT to drop the cost of MSSQL licenses in Azure.
sah2ed 10y ago
> ... but I probably wouldn't focus on that stack starting now if you are into the startup or california scene. That is not necessarily a foregone conclusion. In tandem with their marketing of Azure, MS is pushing SQL Server on Linux heavily [0]. "SQL Server is Windows-only" is no longer a valid argument to choose another RDBMS if a startup uses lots of MS tooling but deploy on Linux servers. [0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/sql-server-vnext-including-Linux https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/sql-server-vnext-...

Godel_unicode 10y ago

Not sure if this is what you intended, but you are aware that SQL server was developed in partnership with Sybase until the mid-90s (when they were substantially the same product) right?

aaronblohowiak 10y ago
Neat history! I was not aware of that! I meant to imply that sybase's rdbms offering is no longer a big player and I would not want to bet the future of my career on being an expert in it.

mistermann 10y ago

I'm not saying MS is going to abandon the platform, but to me it seems entirely possible that "very soon" these cloud platforms using cheap, shared, commodity hardware might be so affordable and technically capable that it might be a no brainer choice unless you have a very good reason to use MSSQL (kind of the opposite today, on-prem by default, cloud if necessary).

jksmith 10y ago
What it will do is encourage MSFT to drop the cost of MSSQL licenses in Azure.

sah2ed 10y ago

> ... but I probably wouldn't focus on that stack starting now if you are into the startup or california scene. That is not necessarily a foregone conclusion. In tandem with their marketing of Azure, MS is pushing SQL Server on Linux heavily [0]. "SQL Server is Windows-only" is no longer a valid argument to choose another RDBMS if a startup uses lots of MS tooling but deploy on Linux servers. [0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/sql-server-vnext-including-Linux https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/sql-server-vnext-...