5 ms·

Have they sold the company to Microsoft? "Microsoft SQL Server on Ubuntu delivers an optimised, cost-effective database platform" Of course not, it's not free

by devit 5y ago

Have they sold the company to Microsoft? "Microsoft SQL Server on Ubuntu delivers an optimised, cost-effective database platform" Of course not, it's not free so it's not cost effective compared to the best database, which is PostgreSQL. Integration with Active Directory group policy seems also a really bad idea since it allows insecure proprietary software to control your Linux machines.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
Any good central policy management is better than none. If you have a Windows-based network, Linux machines represent a serious security risk, because they're less managed. The more managed Ubuntu can be in a Windows environment, the more feasible it is to start switching workloads to run on Linux without compromising security. And plenty of business apps straight up require Microsoft SQL Server. You should be thrilled those now no longer need a Windows license, just the SQL Server license.
kstenerud 5y ago
SQL Server and Active Directory are important for enterprise customers, and their true cost comes from the support contracts, not the purchase price (like all software at the enterprise level, FOSS or not). This is a smart move by Canonical to court enterprise customers, especially with the Red Hat change of ownership chaos and churn.
CraftThatBlock 5y ago
Maybe cost-effective compared to running SQL Server on Windows?
- navaati 5y ago
  And also compared to, for example, Oracle on RedHat.
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
  And a "sanity-effective" alternative to Windows - I've found that running their officially-supported container has been a much better experience.
oaiey 5y ago
Marketing speech ;) .. but money definitely has been changed hands. Active Directory has its own share of problems, but the benefit of having a central location for policies which enforce them on the connected machines is a security plus despite the addition of attack surface by itself. While I first thought that AD integration regards group policy looks like a hard architecture mismatch, it is interestingly not. Take the Windows Registry with millions of keys vs. the thousands of etc files and their thousand sub settings.
- vetinari 5y ago
  From a quick look into the policy files, they map the GPO settings into Gnome dconf keys.
unethical_ban 5y ago
Have you ever been on the ops team for a company larger than 20 people?
atonse 5y ago
Having used both Postgres and SQL server, I have a high amount of respect for both of them. Both are full featured, solid databases. I still miss some of the tool ecosystem (like schema/data diffing tools from RedGate) from my SQL Server days.
Jonnax 5y ago
Clearly you're not the audience for these features. Also proprietary software is not insecure just be being proprietary. And if that's the extent of your understanding of what the software does, then you aren't really qualified to give an opinion on its security.

by devit 5y ago

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

Any good central policy management is better than none. If you have a Windows-based network, Linux machines represent a serious security risk, because they're less managed. The more managed Ubuntu can be in a Windows environment, the more feasible it is to start switching workloads to run on Linux without compromising security. And plenty of business apps straight up require Microsoft SQL Server. You should be thrilled those now no longer need a Windows license, just the SQL Server license.

kstenerud 5y ago

SQL Server and Active Directory are important for enterprise customers, and their true cost comes from the support contracts, not the purchase price (like all software at the enterprise level, FOSS or not). This is a smart move by Canonical to court enterprise customers, especially with the Red Hat change of ownership chaos and churn.

CraftThatBlock 5y ago

Maybe cost-effective compared to running SQL Server on Windows?

navaati 5y ago
And also compared to, for example, Oracle on RedHat.
CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
And a "sanity-effective" alternative to Windows - I've found that running their officially-supported container has been a much better experience.

oaiey 5y ago

Marketing speech ;) .. but money definitely has been changed hands. Active Directory has its own share of problems, but the benefit of having a central location for policies which enforce them on the connected machines is a security plus despite the addition of attack surface by itself. While I first thought that AD integration regards group policy looks like a hard architecture mismatch, it is interestingly not. Take the Windows Registry with millions of keys vs. the thousands of etc files and their thousand sub settings.

vetinari 5y ago
From a quick look into the policy files, they map the GPO settings into Gnome dconf keys.

unethical_ban 5y ago

Have you ever been on the ops team for a company larger than 20 people?

atonse 5y ago

Having used both Postgres and SQL server, I have a high amount of respect for both of them. Both are full featured, solid databases. I still miss some of the tool ecosystem (like schema/data diffing tools from RedGate) from my SQL Server days.

Jonnax 5y ago

Clearly you're not the audience for these features. Also proprietary software is not insecure just be being proprietary. And if that's the extent of your understanding of what the software does, then you aren't really qualified to give an opinion on its security.