April 8, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Feature Debate
April 9, 2008 at 4:06 am
It will be interesting to see what happens with MySQL in the next few years now that Sun has purchased MySQL (Jan. 2008). There is an interesting article on page 7 of the April 2008 edition of SQL Server Magazine on that subject by Michael Otey.
April 9, 2008 at 5:14 am
I think that Sun’s willingness to invest a
cool $1 billion for MySQL shows that Sun
considers the purchase of MySQL to be a
strategic move. Although Sun is primarily a
hardware vendor, it’s clear that the company
is transitioning away from its proprietary
hardware base.
Sqlmag/ April edt.
No one gives that kind of money just for fun, it's a very good investment for Sun.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"It takes 15 minutes to learn the game and a lifetime to master"
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality."
April 9, 2008 at 6:39 am
Look, you're beating a dead horse about SP3. You've said there are no bugs for SP3 to fix, so why should MS go to the effort? Service packs are expensive to create, and with SQL 2008 being shoved out the door what's the point?
New features frequently require architectural changes--which is the point of releasing a new version in the first place.
No bugs=No SP3. That's how it *should* be.
April 9, 2008 at 6:44 am
The main feature that OSS database engines hold over SQL Server is lower cost. If I have a large number of clients that can't afford SQL Server and don't need many of the high end features, MySQL or PostgreSql works well.
April 9, 2008 at 7:10 am
So we shouldn't get patches? I speculated that perhaps there weren't any serious bugs, but there are weekly issues being reporting and cumulative, only slightly tested, updates.
I think we should have Service Packs, and if you disagree, vote No, but vote.
April 9, 2008 at 10:11 am
I voted for SP3 but now I'm having second thoughts.
SQL 2000 had SP3 but then was followed by SP3a.
SQL 2005 had SP2 but then was followed by SP2a.
It seems to me that MS is designing software that is so complex that even they don't fully understand it.
April 9, 2008 at 11:11 am
William,
I tend to agree with you, but we need patches. More so, we need to make our voices heard that the patching needs to be better.
April 13, 2008 at 12:57 pm
roger.plowman (4/9/2008)
Look, you're beating a dead horse about SP3. You've said there are no bugs for SP3 to fix, so why should MS go to the effort? Service packs are expensive to create, and with SQL 2008 being shoved out the door what's the point?New features frequently require architectural changes--which is the point of releasing a new version in the first place.
No bugs=No SP3. That's how it *should* be.
I don't think anyone has said there are no bugs. There are bugs. If you want to see the builds since SP2, here you go:
The SQL Server 2005 builds that were released after SQL Server 2005 Service Pack 2 was released[/url]
Please note that some of those builds, even on that page, list out bugfixes. But as it stands, there are now eight cumulative updates for SQL Server 2005 SP2 (7 of which are available with 8 being released in June).
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
April 13, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I really, really, really wish SQL Server would track client by IP. And allow for security which specified access by IP. For instance, is sa login was only permitted to 127.0.0.1... you get the idea. This is one feature MySQL has had as long as I can remember, but SQL Server still doesn't. I agree with you, Steve, I feel SQL Server is the best overall platform out there. But there is certainly more that can be learned from the others. I know SQL Server 2008 is trying to incorporate some features that have been in Oracle for a while now. Microsoft has certainly paved a successful road based on the strategy of taking the best ideas (without violating intellectual property), whether yours or others, and incorporate them into your product. 🙂
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
April 13, 2008 at 1:04 pm
WILLIAM MITCHELL (4/9/2008)
I voted for SP3 but now I'm having second thoughts.SQL 2000 had SP3 but then was followed by SP3a.
SQL 2005 had SP2 but then was followed by SP2a.
It seems to me that MS is designing software that is so complex that even they don't fully understand it.
SP3a was released because there was a bug in the MDAC component and because they made some security updates directly to counter Slammer. First, you could apply it to an eval copy (this previously wasn't committed) and second, the listener service was disabled if no netlibs were active. Since listener took advantage of a flaw in the listener service, MS listened to the cry of, "If you don't need, uninstall it. Failing that, turn it off!"
SP2a, well, that's a different story. That was due to bugs that should have been revealed in regression testing.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
April 13, 2008 at 1:57 pm
K. Brian Kelley (4/13/2008)
I don't think anyone has said there are no bugs. There are bugs. If you want to see the builds since SP2, here you go:The SQL Server 2005 builds that were released after SQL Server 2005 Service Pack 2 was released[/url]
Please note that some of those builds, even on that page, list out bugfixes. But as it stands, there are now eight cumulative updates for SQL Server 2005 SP2 (7 of which are available with 8 being released in June).
That list is downright scary. Glad I voted for SP3. Thanks for the info.
April 16, 2008 at 10:59 am
Steve I wouldn't mention SSNS too loudly!, Form me I like the editions from being able to run it on a phone (can an i-phone run mySQL?) or on a superdome, of course the operating system you run it on has to be windows.
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply