September 7, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Developer Deployment Frustrations
September 7, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Getting a base install up and running quickly should indeed be the goal of every off the shelf application (I am ignoring in house software quite deliberately).
I just wish it were so.
Ever tried to install enterprise grade software from Cisco or IBM? MS products are a thing of beauty by comparison.
I still pray for the day when they realise that most of us want to get on with the job of using the product rather than being stuck for weeks on end getting the thing installed and configured.
-d
September 7, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Hi Steve, good article you have here. Microsoft is making it so diffcult for a person to install SQL Server from 2005 upwards. I don't really know the older versions very well except for SQL 7 which I can't say I ever had difficulty installing for my clients. When SQL Server 2008 came out I upgraded a client (small system and database) to SQL Server Express. It took me close to 3 days to get it right and the server was bought new for this purpose. So, no previous installations that had to be upgraded only the database of which I copied the database files to the server from an old computer. I won't even talk about how long it took me to upgrade that. I read all the necessary documentation and eventually got a solution from another website than MS.
:-PManie Verster
Developer
Johannesburg
South Africa
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. - Holy Bible
I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times. - Everett Mckinley Dirkson (Well, I am trying. - Manie Verster)
September 8, 2010 at 12:04 am
Not sure what the fuss is about. I've been installing just about every version of SQL from v6.5. Not just installing, but remote deployment and packaging with software installations.
The latest SQL Server 2008 R2 is the best installer package I've used to date.
SQL Server is enterprise software, and considering the power it has, the installer is pretty good. Not perfect, but doable with the right amount of research 😉
Rod
September 8, 2010 at 2:34 am
thought this was a joke to be honest...
but I've read the articles and must agree that the 2008 R2 story is unfortunate at least.
however...
ever tried to install Oracle?
or worse
create a new db based on a backup of another?
and I could give some more examples.
ah man, if there's one point that stands out when comparing sql server to others (eg oracle) it is the managment/installer tools
a developer
September 8, 2010 at 3:15 am
I think that an important point is not to highlight those that do it worse (lowering the bar) but highlight where it could be, and arguably should be, better (raising the bar). It is worth saying that X's installs are easier than Y's to ensure that Y do something about it as opposed to discouraging X from raising the bar further.
In the context of the editorial, I believe that the installation and out of the box maintenance options of the Express edition is what is being considered here. It should be simple to automate an install and configure of Express if it is to form a component of an application like the ones inferred.
Some of the comments appear to suggest that there should be a DBA for these installations or at the very least a developer doing the installation. This will unlikely be the case for the application types I believe was inferred in the editorial. These installations will be of the setup.exe sort (you know, the ones that often pollute the registry). Performed either by users or automated to enterprise desktops. Either way a zero oversight option.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
September 8, 2010 at 5:51 am
I am a developer. I code in .net, but I also develop in sql server as well. If you ask my opinion, the developers out there that don't like sql server it is because it is different than developing in .net or C or whatever language they are writing code. It is a bit of a step, to think of set based solutions. In most developer languages you don't do a lot with sets of data. You might return a set of data to display, but not like you do in sql. I guess the entity framework allows you to work with sets of data, but so far I haven't enjoyed the entity framework much.
When I first started working with sql 6.5 14 years ago, it was a challenge to change my thinking. I was tempted to say, the DBA has to write all the database code. I am glad I didn't and I am a better developer for knowing sql server and how to develop in it.
Ben
September 8, 2010 at 6:09 am
Steve, have you posted this on Connect? Can we get a link to vote for it?
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
September 8, 2010 at 6:13 am
I think what you are missing in today's editorial comes only with age - old age that is...
You young folks missed the days when "software developer" meant you knew code, AND database. This is because back in the late 70's and early 80's systems like dBase, Rbase, QNE, and so many others were complete systems - that is they came with a programming language and (for lack of a better term) built-in databases. There was NO configuring SQL, no hassle bundling everything you needed, and no silliness where you had one coder, and one database guy.
Now, we have "advanced" (chuckle intended) to where no one person can whip up a small and successful app and launch it, and potentially build a company behind it. No, we need experts for everything. Where one guy used to be able to build, launch and support a networked application, we now need a team of guys to even get it installed. This is of course "progress".
Worse still, we now have ".NET" and today I still meet with potential clients who will say "It must be .NET..." and then I will ask them 'Do you know what .NET is?' and the answer, 99% of the time is "No, but I know I need it...". In the old days, people just wanted good, user-friendly working systems - now, they know they need something they don't even know the first thing about.
We used to have a market with dozens of development systems, now we have basically two or three and they are all overly complex and horribly splintered. No one person can manage what used to be so simple.
...and we call this progress. For me, looking over my decades in the business, its two steps forward, a hundred backwards as we layer complexity where simplicity would have done nicely.
September 8, 2010 at 6:50 am
There is a place for a easy to deploy, middle weight, embeddable database solution like the aging Visual FoxPro or now defunct VistaDB. If Microsoft wants to attract more developers, making the smaller vesions of SQL Server simpler to install and maintain would be a big win. And it would help grow the sales of the large versions.
September 8, 2010 at 6:55 am
jcrawf02 (9/8/2010)
Steve, have you posted this on Connect? Can we get a link to vote for it?
I didn't post it, but the link is in the editorial and here: http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/586624/why-is-deploying-sql-server-2008-r2-sooooo-frustrating
It's a version mismatch, but I'm not quite clear why VS2010 has issues with the SS2K8 R2 installer.
September 8, 2010 at 7:01 am
kennethje (9/8/2010)
thought this was a joke to be honest...but I've read the articles and must agree that the 2008 R2 story is unfortunate at least.
however...
ever tried to install Oracle?
or worse
create a new db based on a backup of another?
and I could give some more examples.
ah man, if there's one point that stands out when comparing sql server to others (eg oracle) it is the managment/installer tools
a developer
Even installing the Oracle client software requires 10x more disk space, time, and trouble when compared to installing the SQL Server client. When it comes to installation and configuration, we really are blessed.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
September 8, 2010 at 7:10 am
Steve Jones - Editor (9/8/2010)
jcrawf02 (9/8/2010)
Steve, have you posted this on Connect? Can we get a link to vote for it?I didn't post it, but the link is in the editorial and here: http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/586624/why-is-deploying-sql-server-2008-r2-sooooo-frustrating
It's a version mismatch, but I'm not quite clear why VS2010 has issues with the SS2K8 R2 installer.
I saw that one, I meant a coherent request like yours: 😉
I'd like to see Express not only have a very simple setup that works across multiple versions of Visual Studio, but also basic maintenance plans built in that allow full and log backups (if needed), along with index rebuilds with a simple switch set as a part of setup. A few registry keys or XML config changes could set paths or frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
September 8, 2010 at 7:24 am
I haven't done enough work with Express to frame something that I think would make sense to the MS team. If you anyone knows some experienced VS developers that struggle with this, or they are in that boat, please feel free to submit something to Connect and post a note here.
September 8, 2010 at 7:42 am
If I was referred to as young, thank you.
In the UK one of the major accounting packages of the late 80s/early 90s was Sovereign (from Sage). This also had everything built in. It was easy to develop for but difficult to integrate with anything else. Nowadays our systems cannot live in isolation. This makes them harder to design, implement and maintain. Evermore the focus is on standards.
I think that the biggest problem is not the one development system per application but that we haven't raised the abstraction level high enough in software development. The systems could have a high level of abstraction because they were not so general i.e. often they were targeting a particular system type e.g. data processing. The level of plumbing code we still write (and disgustingly see generated) is too high.
Why are we still writing mostly in 3GLs? Microsoft missed a trick when they fell foul of making VB.Net equivalent to C#. C# raised the productivity of C++ developers. Where was the raise in the productivity of VB.NET over VB6?
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 41 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply