January 12, 2017 at 1:05 pm
Revenant - Thursday, January 12, 2017 1:00 PMI see lots of migration to Azure, and in Azure you don't care which OS is your server running.
If you are a Linux shop, you might care very much, which is why SQL Server on Linux is needed on Azure. I don't see much need for it anywhere else. As others have pointed out, I certainly wouldn't implement it in a Windows shop because then you have to support it.
January 12, 2017 at 1:19 pm
GeorgeCopeland - Thursday, January 12, 2017 1:05 PMRevenant - Thursday, January 12, 2017 1:00 PMI see lots of migration to Azure, and in Azure you don't care which OS is your server running.If you are a Linux shop, you might care very much, which is why SQL Server on Linux is needed on Azure. I don't see much need for it anywhere else. As others have pointed out, I certainly wouldn't implement it in a Windows shop because then you have to support it.
I see my customers migrate to Azure SQL Database. If you do not have a server, click on Create a new server, which asks you for a server name, admin login name and passwords, and location. There are no questions about which OS you want, there is no license fee and you do not maintain anything. You just pay for DTUs.
January 12, 2017 at 1:36 pm
Revenant - Thursday, January 12, 2017 1:19 PMI see my customers migrate to Azure SQL Database. If you do not have a server, click on Create a new server, which asks you for a server name, admin login name and passwords, and location. There are no questions about which OS you want, there is no license fee and you do not maintain anything. You just pay for DTUs.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/virtual-machines-linux-intro-on-azure
January 12, 2017 at 2:04 pm
GeorgeCopeland - Thursday, January 12, 2017 1:36 PMRevenant - Thursday, January 12, 2017 1:19 PMI see my customers migrate to Azure SQL Database. If you do not have a server, click on Create a new server, which asks you for a server name, admin login name and passwords, and location. There are no questions about which OS you want, there is no license fee and you do not maintain anything. You just pay for DTUs.https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/virtual-machines-linux-intro-on-azure
That looks like that has to do with setting up a linux instance on Azure, I'm not seeing anything related to SQL Server. Or for that matter anything in SQL Server on linux that would make me think you couldn't install SQL Server on your azure linux instance.
January 12, 2017 at 10:27 pm
I'm pretty excited about Unix/Linux in general. I grew up on FreeBSD.
Does the OS matter? Sure. I think it matters. I just don't think Linux matters to those who have primarily worked on Windows most of their careers. So, I think you're right that most of those using Windows Server with SQL Server won't really be that interested versus those who are already on Linux that now have a new database engine option available to them. It's just a matter if they will choose it over something like MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB whatever.
I personally do think Linux is a much better OS for data environments. I only see this move solidifying that fact.
January 13, 2017 at 12:05 am
xsevensinzx - Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:27 PMI'm pretty excited about Unix/Linux in general. I grew up on FreeBSD.Does the OS matter? Sure. I think it matters. I just don't think Linux matters to those who have primarily worked on Windows most of their careers. So, I think you're right that most of those using Windows Server with SQL Server won't really be that interested versus those who are already on Linux that now have a new database engine option available to them. It's just a matter if they will choose it over something like MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB whatever.
I personally do think Linux is a much better OS for data environments. I only see this move solidifying that fact.
I am under an NDA, but I think that I am allowed to say that to MSFT the OS no longer matters. It is all about the services; therefrom my earlier post about of not selecting an OS for your server when you are creating a Azure SQL Database. Live with that.
January 13, 2017 at 2:09 am
chrisn-585491 - Wednesday, January 11, 2017 6:50 AMThe disconnect is that Linux is seen as a Open and mostly "free" platform running mostly "free" software. And actual production licenses for SQL Server are anything but free. As good as the Linux platform is, there are some cases where non-free software is superior. Office, AutoCAD and SQL Server are three that come to mind. (On a personal note I don't have a single paid application on my home Linux machines, but I'm not doing enterprise database development on them either. <snip> )
I certainly agree with chrisn about the cognitive dissonance that comes from the idea of using proprietary software on a Linux install. This may be considerably less if you are already paying for a RHEL licence and support contract. This is however closed source software, which although this isn't of much concern personally, I can see point made by RMS when he said something like "If you are willing to compromise this little piece of freedom because it is convenient, you will be willing to compromise another little piece, and another, until you have no freedom left." This Idea was also repeated by Cory Doctorow in hos 2016 Keynote speech at the O'reilly conference when he said that the GPL is a Ulysses pact that stops the future, weaker you from compromising your past, stronger principals. I can see this causing the camps of Linux to diverge even further into the "Completely free and Open" camp and the "Whatever works for me" camp. I certainly see strong opposition from the Free Software camp.
January 13, 2017 at 6:46 am
Alex Gay - Friday, January 13, 2017 2:09 AMI certainly agree with chrisn about the cognitive dissonance that comes from the idea of using proprietary software on a Linux install. This may be considerably less if you are already paying for a RHEL licence and support contract. This is however closed source software, which although this isn't of much concern personally, I can see point made by RMS when he said something like "If you are willing to compromise this little piece of freedom because it is convenient, you will be willing to compromise another little piece, and another, until you have no freedom left." This Idea was also repeated by Cory Doctorow in hos 2016 Keynote speech at the O'reilly conference when he said that the GPL is a Ulysses pact that stops the future, weaker you from compromising your past, stronger principals. I can see this causing the camps of Linux to diverge even further into the "Completely free and Open" camp and the "Whatever works for me" camp. I certainly see strong opposition from the Free Software camp.
I get the freedom argument but I am definitely in the whatever works camp. I standardized on Windows years ago, and the reason has nothing to do with the technology, but staffing. Windows geeks grow on trees. The freedom philosophy is interesting, but paying clients don't give a flip. This is a fact that some of the freedom guys appear to not understand.
January 13, 2017 at 7:00 am
I teach SQL on SQL Server and one thing that Linux gives is the ability to set up an inexpensive VPS on a service such as DigitalOcean for about $10 per month to give the students the ability to connect to a live remote instance to practise on.
This would be impractical on a Windows VPS as they cost so much to run.
It is also a chance to teach them a bit about another OS.
Robin
January 13, 2017 at 9:05 am
robinwilson - Friday, January 13, 2017 7:00 AMI teach SQL on SQL Server and one thing that Linux gives is the ability to set up an inexpensive VPS on a service such as DigitalOcean for about $10 per month to give the students the ability to connect to a live remote instance to practise on.
This would be impractical on a Windows VPS as they cost so much to run.It is also a chance to teach them a bit about another OS.
Robin
Exactly why the OS does matter: costs.
January 13, 2017 at 9:19 am
xsevensinzx - Friday, January 13, 2017 9:05 AMExactly why the OS does matter: costs.
For the enterprise, OS cost is a nit compared to user productivity and programmer salaries.
January 15, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Eric M Russell - Wednesday, January 11, 2017 10:53 AMNow, does SSMS or Toad work on Linux?
SSMS will not run on Linux, but you can connect to SS on Linux from SSMS. Just about all the java based tools will work. such as SQL Developer, db visualize, SQuirrel SQL and DBeaver.
The more you are prepared, the less you need it.
January 17, 2017 at 4:50 am
I'm going to c&p a post of mine i think no one saw (from here https://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1845816-3051-1.aspx#bm1846242)
I'm musing about the sense of this SQL Server porting.
Assuming a reliable and common sensed SQL Server is expected to cover the task of database server and no more (no web server etc.), i can't see where is the gain in running at the top of Linux.
I can see only one advantage: Linux is free (at least until you don't need a subscription like RedHat one).
But we are speaking about a few hundred dollars of investments for the OS compared to the much higher SQL licensing costs.
And, well, Microsoft would have saved a lot of investments for this development just giving for free a Windows Server corresponding license bundled with SQL Server.
And what about the headaches?
Nobody has already mentioned the compatibility between the two versions but i bet is not an easy street.
For example, are we sure the SSIS packets developed for Windows version can run on Linux out-of-the-box?
And what about the Oledb drivers? Sometimes are developed by 3rd parties and a porting is not granted.
I think we are only putting ourseves in trouble for free.
January 17, 2017 at 8:24 am
massimo.giacomello - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 4:50 AMI'm going to c&p a post of mine i think no one saw (from here https://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1845816-3051-1.aspx#bm1846242)I'm musing about the sense of this SQL Server porting.
Assuming a reliable and common sensed SQL Server is expected to cover the task of database server and no more (no web server etc.), i can't see where is the gain in running at the top of Linux.
I can see only one advantage: Linux is free (at least until you don't need a subscription like RedHat one).But we are speaking about a few hundred dollars of investments for the OS compared to the much higher SQL licensing costs.
And, well, Microsoft would have saved a lot of investments for this development just giving for free a Windows Server corresponding license bundled with SQL Server.And what about the headaches?
Nobody has already mentioned the compatibility between the two versions but i bet is not an easy street.
For example, are we sure the SSIS packets developed for Windows version can run on Linux out-of-the-box?
And what about the Oledb drivers? Sometimes are developed by 3rd parties and a porting is not granted.I think we are only putting ourseves in trouble for free.
I do not hear of people complaining about SQL Server compared to the competition.
I do hear MANY people complaining about Windows Server compared to other OSes. Windows has a bad name whereas Linux is the golden child. Regardless of any facts, whether this is deserved or not, the perception in the boardroom is that Linux is the one that is both free and keeps the crown jewels safe. It is the acceptable choice.
If I was Microsoft then I would know which offspring I would drop in favour of the other.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
January 17, 2017 at 8:30 am
Gary Varga - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 8:24 AMI do not hear of people complaining about SQL Server compared to the competition.I do hear MANY people complaining about Windows Server compared to other OSes. Windows has a bad name whereas Linux is the golden child. Regardless of any facts, whether this is deserved or not, the perception in the boardroom is that Linux is the one that is both free and keeps the crown jewels safe. It is the acceptable choice.
If I was Microsoft then I would know which offspring I would drop in favour of the other.
Windows server has a place in the enterprise depending on the need, there is no good or bad. In my experience, Windows is the preferred environment for delivering business functionality, not because of the technology, but because staffing and support are comparatively easy to acquire. Converting an existing business operation from Windows to Linux would be a disaster.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 67 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply