5 ms·

I'm still unsure of the usefulness of SQL Server on Linux. I don't see the point of running SQL Server on Linux (I'd rather choose PostgreSQL or something), nor

by CrLf 9y ago

I'm still unsure of the usefulness of SQL Server on Linux. I don't see the point of running SQL Server on Linux (I'd rather choose PostgreSQL or something), nor do I see the point of choosing Linux if I'd already settled for SQL Server. I don't think this (in the end) is anything more than a marketing trick, there to give the illusion of choice. This is not uncommon in ISVs, btw. There are many commercial offerings that have a Linux version, crippled in so many interesting ways that it makes it pointless. I'm a Linux person but I advocated against choosing Linux versions (of different products) many times in the past. Actually, that means the marketing trick works. In my experience, software always has a primary plaform where it shines, and the other "supported" platforms are always stepchildren.

qarioz 9y ago
I don't see any plus either, but I can see management telling developers to use sql servers or to maintain old database using Linux.
d4nt 9y ago
I think for .net developers, this makes more sense. You have an existing .net app, built to talk to MS SQL Server, if the latest version of .net can run on Linux, but your DB can't then you're faced with either managing two OS flavours, or just ignoring the Linux compatibility. Ignoring Linux compatibility would have knock on effects because Linux is now the platform for so many other tool, e.g. Docker. Regardless of how easy the 'upgrade and migrate to Linux' story is right now, I think it's vital that MS started down this road. Otherwise the .net framework would be [seen as] finished now, and people would start planning to migrate off it.
- marsrover 9y ago
  This is the situation I'm in with a toy app I built. It is running .NET Core, talking to SQLServer, and running on Windows Server 2016. I want to migrate the entire application to my Debian box and without SQLServer on Linux, this would be much more painful.
grovegames 9y ago
I have 20 years of experience with SQL Server, and zero experience with PostgreSQL. You aren't the target market, but I certainly am.
dspillett 9y ago
I think a large part of it is supporting cross-platform developers who might be mainly Linux based internally, so someone writing apps in node primarily on Linux (for example) can more easily test against MS SQL Server (as well as postgres/mariadb/...) and add it to the "supported" list without that being quite as much hassle as it might otherwise be. SQL Server working on Linux potentially increases its catchment area for devs and projects noticeably. I see that as a much more likely use case than SQL Server on Linux in production. Now that practically all the features are available in the standard edition (depending on your support and scale-up/scale-out requirements) it could end up used in production for licensing cost reasons particularly if the availability/DR/scaling features work well (where previously if you needed Enterprise edition the cost of windows was a drop in the ocean - Standard isn't exactly pocket money cheap but still...). Another PoV could just be that these days interpolarity matters much more to MS than it used to, as their key product focus is moving further away from the OS & individual services and more onto the platform with Azure - they don't care what DB engine you run on which OS, as long as you do so on their platform - hence moves to support postgres & mysql in the database-as-a-service-upon-platform-as-a-service manner that they already offer for SQL Server. Of course they'd prefer that you used Windows and SQL Server but not wanting to (or depending on the project, not being able to) use one needn't get in the way of using the other, not should not using one (or either) get I the way of using Azure.
tw04 9y ago
That's because you're missing the point. MS isn't competing against Postgres or MySQL, they're competing against Oracle, DB2, and Hana. All of which have a variant that runs on Linux. They need to be just as flexible as their real competition if they want to continue to expand market share.
- gmarx 9y ago
  meta-point. You could have edited out your first sentence
  - dspillett 9y ago
    Or just reworded it: "I don't think you are not seeing MS's real objective here" is probably what he meant, in the tone he thought it, he just wrote it in a more direct manner that made it seem more aggressively negative.
gwbas1c 9y ago
I work for a SAAS company that uses MS SQL. I've heard over an over that ops and management loves MS SQL but hates Windows. MS SQL is the product that people are choosing, not Windows. Why should the MS SQL team force people to choose Windows?
- snuxoll 9y ago
  As much as I love PostgreSQL, which is a lot, MS SQL still has some exceptional functionality around business intelligence and handles large reporting warehouses with ease. We just purchased three UCS blades for a new SQL Server deployment to consolidate our existing databases and handle the data warehousing project we are starting, here I am wasting days writing ansible modules and roles to set everything up when I could just be templating out a couple config files if all the SQL Server components ran on Linux. I'm incredibly happy Microsoft is bringing SQL Server to Linux as a DevOps person, I'm really hoping SSIS/SSAS/SSRS makes it in eventually because they're the only thing keeping me from saying we should be deploying the new cluster on Linux instead of Windows.
  - mmargerum 9y ago
    I have been using sql server since 6.0, the standard edition is a steal for the price. Been running critical systems on it for two decades and it's been an absolute rock since the version 7 rewrite.
    - snuxoll 9y ago
      To be fair, in comparison to DB2 or Oracle it's not hard to be a steal for the price.
    - coverband 9y ago
      Indeed, version 7 came with the best improvements in features, scalability and stability I ever witnessed in a product. A bit later, SQL 2000 also broke new ground with its OLAP functionality.
    - dspillett 9y ago
mmargerum 9y ago
I don't want or need windows server and certainly don't want to pay for cals for my users. However, I'm very happy with sql server and will pay for that running on Linux . My middleware is go and I can cross compile it to Linux from my mac. I would have no code to rewrite to make it happen
- CrLf 9y ago
  Honest question: won't SQL Server on Linux require CALs as well?
  - mmargerum 9y ago
    Yes. I was saying I didn't want to pay for windows server and any cals I would need for my users, I'm perfectly fine with paying for sql server cals. Just not windows server cals.

by CrLf 9y ago

qarioz 9y ago

I don't see any plus either, but I can see management telling developers to use sql servers or to maintain old database using Linux.

d4nt 9y ago

I think for .net developers, this makes more sense. You have an existing .net app, built to talk to MS SQL Server, if the latest version of .net can run on Linux, but your DB can't then you're faced with either managing two OS flavours, or just ignoring the Linux compatibility. Ignoring Linux compatibility would have knock on effects because Linux is now the platform for so many other tool, e.g. Docker. Regardless of how easy the 'upgrade and migrate to Linux' story is right now, I think it's vital that MS started down this road. Otherwise the .net framework would be [seen as] finished now, and people would start planning to migrate off it.

marsrover 9y ago
This is the situation I'm in with a toy app I built. It is running .NET Core, talking to SQLServer, and running on Windows Server 2016. I want to migrate the entire application to my Debian box and without SQLServer on Linux, this would be much more painful.

grovegames 9y ago

I have 20 years of experience with SQL Server, and zero experience with PostgreSQL. You aren't the target market, but I certainly am.

dspillett 9y ago

I think a large part of it is supporting cross-platform developers who might be mainly Linux based internally, so someone writing apps in node primarily on Linux (for example) can more easily test against MS SQL Server (as well as postgres/mariadb/...) and add it to the "supported" list without that being quite as much hassle as it might otherwise be. SQL Server working on Linux potentially increases its catchment area for devs and projects noticeably. I see that as a much more likely use case than SQL Server on Linux in production. Now that practically all the features are available in the standard edition (depending on your support and scale-up/scale-out requirements) it could end up used in production for licensing cost reasons particularly if the availability/DR/scaling features work well (where previously if you needed Enterprise edition the cost of windows was a drop in the ocean - Standard isn't exactly pocket money cheap but still...). Another PoV could just be that these days interpolarity matters much more to MS than it used to, as their key product focus is moving further away from the OS & individual services and more onto the platform with Azure - they don't care what DB engine you run on which OS, as long as you do so on their platform - hence moves to support postgres & mysql in the database-as-a-service-upon-platform-as-a-service manner that they already offer for SQL Server. Of course they'd prefer that you used Windows and SQL Server but not wanting to (or depending on the project, not being able to) use one needn't get in the way of using the other, not should not using one (or either) get I the way of using Azure.

tw04 9y ago

That's because you're missing the point. MS isn't competing against Postgres or MySQL, they're competing against Oracle, DB2, and Hana. All of which have a variant that runs on Linux. They need to be just as flexible as their real competition if they want to continue to expand market share.

gmarx 9y ago
meta-point. You could have edited out your first sentence
- dspillett 9y ago
  Or just reworded it: "I don't think you are not seeing MS's real objective here" is probably what he meant, in the tone he thought it, he just wrote it in a more direct manner that made it seem more aggressively negative.

gwbas1c 9y ago

I work for a SAAS company that uses MS SQL. I've heard over an over that ops and management loves MS SQL but hates Windows. MS SQL is the product that people are choosing, not Windows. Why should the MS SQL team force people to choose Windows?

snuxoll 9y ago
As much as I love PostgreSQL, which is a lot, MS SQL still has some exceptional functionality around business intelligence and handles large reporting warehouses with ease. We just purchased three UCS blades for a new SQL Server deployment to consolidate our existing databases and handle the data warehousing project we are starting, here I am wasting days writing ansible modules and roles to set everything up when I could just be templating out a couple config files if all the SQL Server components ran on Linux. I'm incredibly happy Microsoft is bringing SQL Server to Linux as a DevOps person, I'm really hoping SSIS/SSAS/SSRS makes it in eventually because they're the only thing keeping me from saying we should be deploying the new cluster on Linux instead of Windows.
- mmargerum 9y ago
  I have been using sql server since 6.0, the standard edition is a steal for the price. Been running critical systems on it for two decades and it's been an absolute rock since the version 7 rewrite.
  - snuxoll 9y ago
    To be fair, in comparison to DB2 or Oracle it's not hard to be a steal for the price.
  - coverband 9y ago
    Indeed, version 7 came with the best improvements in features, scalability and stability I ever witnessed in a product. A bit later, SQL 2000 also broke new ground with its OLAP functionality.
  - dspillett 9y ago

mmargerum 9y ago

I don't want or need windows server and certainly don't want to pay for cals for my users. However, I'm very happy with sql server and will pay for that running on Linux . My middleware is go and I can cross compile it to Linux from my mac. I would have no code to rewrite to make it happen

CrLf 9y ago
Honest question: won't SQL Server on Linux require CALs as well?
- mmargerum 9y ago
  Yes. I was saying I didn't want to pay for windows server and any cals I would need for my users, I'm perfectly fine with paying for sql server cals. Just not windows server cals.