MS SQL Server on Linux

Why would people be unhappy about it? Seems like a major step to me. Good on MS
 
Some feel this degrades Linux. They have felt that way about other similar steps taken by Microsoft.
 
prOd said:
Why would people be unhappy about it? Seems like a major step to me. Good on MS
Click to expand...
Because they hate anything Microsoft because a blog post said so.
 
Arthur said:
This is big news for those Linux shops that nevertheless run Win servers just to have SQL Server. It's a new Msft under SN.
Click to expand...

Exactly, you also save a couple of thousand on Windows licensing
 
qhubekela said:
Some feel this degrades Linux. They have felt that way about other similar steps taken by Microsoft.
Click to expand...

And they are retarded in the extreme...

SQL Server is fscking epic for what it does.... and being able to run it on Linux is potentially something I will be investigating at some point as the licensing costs could make it an attractive thing, as well as potentially the slightly lower base OS hardware requirements.
 
ToxicBunny said:
And they are retarded in the extreme...

SQL Server is fscking epic for what it does.... and being able to run it on Linux is potentially something I will be investigating at some point as the licensing costs could make it an attractive thing, as well as potentially the slightly lower base OS hardware requirements.
Click to expand...

The thing is though - when licensing say an enterprise edition of SQL server the cost for the OS is miniscule when compared to the license costs for SQL server - per core licensing is a killer...
 
Necropolis said:
The thing is though - when licensing say an enterprise edition of SQL server the cost for the OS is miniscule when compared to the license costs for SQL server - per core licensing is a killer...
Click to expand...

Oh I know it very well..

BUT, when it comes to Enterprise stuff, even a small 2% or 3% saving in licensing costs, and potentially say 5% saving in system utilisation is BIG money.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Oh I know it very well..

BUT, when it comes to Enterprise stuff, even a small 2% or 3% saving in licensing costs, and potentially say 5% saving in system utilisation is BIG money.
Click to expand...

This is true as well.

I wonder if the licensing model for the Linux version will be different to the Windows version?
 
Necropolis said:
This is true as well.

I wonder if the licensing model for the Linux version will be different to the Windows version?
Click to expand...
Will be having a chat to our local ms boys in the next few days about this actually... I expect the cost per core licensing to be roughly the same... unless it's not completely feature complete which is entirely possible
 
ToxicBunny said:
And they are retarded in the extreme...

SQL Server is fscking epic for what it does.... and being able to run it on Linux is potentially something I will be investigating at some point as the licensing costs could make it an attractive thing, as well as potentially the slightly lower base OS hardware requirements.
Click to expand...

Yeah - the guys you work for spend far too much on MS licensing. That being said you're going to fork out for RH licensing now :whistle:
 
Necropolis said:
The thing is though - when licensing say an enterprise edition of SQL server the cost for the OS is miniscule when compared to the license costs for SQL server - per core licensing is a killer...
Click to expand...
Necropolis said:
This is true as well.

I wonder if the licensing model for the Linux version will be different to the Windows version?
Click to expand...
Ja, they need to fix the licensing. It's byzantine. When I was there this was the sort of the Msfters used to mock IBM and Oracle about. Hopefully Nadella gets round to fixing it sooner rather than later. Maybe with Server 2016...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X