MSSQL 2005 Finally Released 318
mnovotny writes "Computerworld reports that Microsoft is finally set to release their belated SQL Server 2005. From the article: 'Despite a two-year delay, several users who have tested the software cited the improved performance and new functionality it brings as positive developments that likely will convince them to upgrade soon.' The free version can be downloaded directly from Microsoft."
Before you release the hounds (Score:5, Insightful)
MS SQL Server Yes it is closed sources, I don't know what type of security holes they will find in it, It is defiantly bloated because it will not fit 5 1/2 single density floppy disk with enough rooms for a 2000 record table. If you already have MS SQL 2000 and in a year or so you need to upgrade it will probably be easer to go to 2005 them migrating to the others.
Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:5, Insightful)
The limited stored proc language that SQL server had before was actually a good thing; you could do some limited stuff in the DB. Thus, you weren't often able to give in to the tendency to stick application logic in the database tier.
And this quote pretty much says it all: Raichura said the support for Microsoft's Common Language Runtime technology via Visual Studio will let him avoid having to go to multiple developers with different specialties. "I can natively write stored procedures straight into software," he said. "This increases my resource pool because it reduces the distinction between software developers and architects."
Read: Now, I can pay people less to create a complete fucking pigsty that will perform well enough that the app will appear largely stable.
Free? (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source making waves... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, this (as well as news of Oracle's "free/lite" version of 10g), are good news... that Open Source projects like MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL, etc are forcing the "cathedral" software shops to re-examine their ways, since they (Microsoft & others) can't rely on piracy anymore (due to impacted profits) to keep the "pipeline full" and "mindshare". It's good for the closed source developers, and ultimately it will be good for OSS developers, as OSS entries in these fields mature. Competition is good, and the developers benefit.
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all about separating "logic" from the data access layer, but simple things like that are probably possible using the C# stored procs.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this approach is not too dissimilar from what Oracle has done with Java.
New toys (Score:2, Insightful)
Two years late, hunh?? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's used as the eternal carrot... to keep the CTO from moving to a competetor's product that's already there and better. As long as 'real soon now' continues to inch ever closer, you can keep this up for an incredible length of time.
The mantra is: It's easier to stay with our junky product for X months than to go through the pain of migrating to their superior product. -- then, 6 months later, it's X-2 months.
If it finally comes out missing a couple of promised features (cut because 'we had to finally ship something!'), that's OK because it'll be in the next release ((due in X months).
Rinse-repeat.
Re:Open Source making waves... (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, expect companies like Borland to be very upset by this move. This will cut into some of their market (what's left of it), and might finally be enough to push them under.
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here's hoping (Score:5, Insightful)
"Despite the few hiccups, I am enjoying VS 2005 and have been able to work with it productively. VS 2005 is stable and performant, and it's better to have it arrive now rather than later. The runtime is solid, and various products across Microsoft and outside also depend on it being delivered on a timely basis."
Yes, I've found a few minor hiccups in VS2005 as well. But honestly, it's nothing like MiniMSFT would have it seem. I can't speak for everyone, but VS2005 has been solid for us since RTM (we were a MS beta tester from Beta 1 through RTM), and we're very happy with its current form.
Re:Here's hoping (Score:2, Insightful)
People forget about the license issues (Score:1, Insightful)
Say goodbye to the 80's (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore I treat the database as the "sacred resource". This almost always means that business logic is kept outside the database.
Your approach was right in the 80's when client/server was the norm. Today you should have an n-tier system and have the business logic in an application server.
You can still have lots of different applications while using centralized code. Only, now you call the application server instead of the database.
Re:Open Source making waves... (Score:4, Insightful)
What utter nonsense.
Firstly, as the other person mentioned - the thread was explicitly about SQL Server Express Edition, which is a variation of something that Microsoft has been doing since SQL Server 7 (when the MSDE first appeared). Not to mention things like the JET engine have always been freely distributable.
Secondly, Microsoft has offered a free SDK/Platform SDK for years. This is a very comprehensive kit that can be used to develop software.
The whole focus is wrong anyways - the Express editions of Visual Studio, which have some killer limitations (e.g. complete lack of optimization), are targetted at dabblers. These dabblers would never, in a million years, try getting going with Eclipse or the like. At the most they'd warez an ISO of Visual Studio Pro.
Which brings up the next point - Microsoft has always been relatively hands off about piracy of Visual Studio. That is their tacit real "Free" version. Even Visual Studio 2005 doesn't include activation or any other anti-warez measures.
Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (Score:1, Insightful)
Egads. Either this is a troll (good job - had me fooled), or yet another example of the bizarre lengths folks go when using .NET [oreilly.com] and don't know any better. Hey! Since you've got all your business logic in you db, simply switch to J2EE!
Re:SQL Server Reporting Services and Report Builde (Score:3, Insightful)
Since most reports of this type are created by users looking for answers to simple questions, i've found that creating dashboards with great navigation & drilling between graphs, charts, and tables to be a better option. This can then be managed by the warehouse or transactional database owners with its accuracy ensured.
Sigh, i've got one database that needs an upgrade right now and the only obstacle is the brio users with their reports that will break. I can't fix their reports, so I will have to give them some terribly-long transition time.
Re:Semi-On-Topic Question for Database Mavens (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:3, Insightful)
While compared to .NET PHP is relatively simple
That got to be the understatement of the year. Seriously. Comparing event-based application programming (ASP.NET) to sequential HTML-generation (PHP) is something you just don't do.
Not saying PHP is crap or anything. There's stuff that takes seconds in PHP and ages in ASP.NET and vica verse. There's probably also some Java-alternatives for those who need more advanced webscripting than PHP allows for. "Right tool for the right job" as I usually say.
but you get the ability to not be stuck on your platform and move around
Not disagreeing with you there, though.
Haven't tried mono myself, but from what I've heard it still needs some work in a few departments. Now that .NET 2.0 is released they may also have to do some catching up, unless they've started that work already. Anyway, .NET (though pretty damn good IMO) is definitely MS-technology and if you don't want to get locked into a MS infrastructure, that's proably the worst choice you can ever make.
Re:The biggest are (for SQL) (Score:3, Insightful)
Biting a troll? I dunno, but here goes.
MSDE: Not really a high-end database, even though I've seen it employed as one in production systems. Nasty, nasty.
However MSDE -does- have it's merrits. For a developer, you can pretty much count on that working against a lightweight MSDE will produce the exact same results when moving your code over to the production server running MS SQL server 2000. I think that's what the parent poster might have implied.
I'd take MS SQL Server Developer or Enterprise edition anyday, even for development, but not every company can afford one SQL-server licence per developer emloyed. In cases like that, people will likely go for MSDE.
Re:Before you release the hounds (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you can't. Oracle XE [oracle.com], the free version, is restricted to 4gb of data. Not 4tb, 4 gigs.
That's not a data warehouse, that's a data convenience store.