Posted on 03/07/2016 7:25:19 PM PST by dayglored
Microsoft has ported its SQL Server software to Linux and has promised to release it in full by next year.
From today, the Windows giant, which once likened Linux to cancer, will show off to a lucky few a preview of its SQL database's core engine for the open-source operating system. The full SQL Server 2016 for Linux will be made available by mid-2017, we're told.
Scott Guthrie, exec veep of Microsoft's cloud and enterprise group, said in a blog post on Monday that the Linux port "will enable SQL Server to deliver a consistent data platform across Windows Server and Linux, as well as on-premises and cloud."
"SQL Server on Linux will provide customers with even more flexibility in their data solution," he added. In other words: we know you're using tons of Linux machines, virtual and real, in your data centers; go on, let us have a go on some of them, eh?
Here's the crucial part of Guthrie's post:
The private preview of SQL Server on Linux is available starting today and we look forward to working with the community, our customers and our partners to bring it to market.It's another obvious sign that Microsoft, with Satya Nadella at the helm, is no longer giving the non-Windows world – particularly the open-source world – the cold shoulder. Let's see: it's bought Android and iOS app building toolmakers Xamarin; it has developed its own flavor of Linux for networking; it's making utilities for monitoring Linux servers; its public cloud Azure and Linux maker Red Hat are all loved up; and it's released stats package R Server for Linux.
SQL Server for Linux is not an entirely insane play by Microsoft, which has built its business on Windows and software for Windows, like its Office suite. If you're running a bunch of Linux servers, you're not likely to ditch the OS for Windows. You're not likely to switch your web server software to Redmond's IIS. You're not going to port your Unix-friendly web apps to Microsoft's platform.
But, hey, you might want to switch out your SQL database server. SQL is a common language, and a well-behaving application shouldn't really care which SQL database engine it's talking to as long as it follows the standard. Sure, that's not quite how the real world works – every engine has its own quirks that developers tune for or work around.
However, if Microsoft is going to persuade Linux bods to replace any part of their stack with a Redmond product, an SQL service is an easier drop-in replacement than others.
Let's hope it all works out better than Microsoft's FoxPro database engine for Unix. Or Skype for Linux. Or Skype for OS X.
We'll find out more on Redmond's touchy-feely relationship with Linux at the US corp's "Data Driven" get-together in New York City on Thursday, which we'll be attending.
(More embedded links at The Register article.)
Consider that M$ uses Linux to switching infrastructure for their Azure cloud.
The question that I have is why would anybody who runs Linux want to use M$-SQL?
Legacy app maybe?
Perhaps for those commercial apps that require it.
Sure saves on server os licensing.
Wow, let’s see who offers it on Linux shared hosting sites. It will save me a bunch of $!
what exactly does htis mean? People running linux machiens will be able to use windows apps eventaully?
It means that Microsoft SQL (MSSQL) was starting to get murdered in the enterprise by Oracle running on RedHat Linux.
Everyone saw that coming. This is Microsoft’s response.
Someone tell me where I sign up for the beta for the Mac OS X version of MSFT SQL Server Management Studio. I’d presume that’s coming next.
That can already be done. This means that Microsoft is trying to encroach into Linux systems by offering to replace free server components with their costly, bug-ridden, and gigantic pseudo-equivalents.
Always disliked T-SQL, but still interesting.
im lost when it comes to acronyms like this- and what they stand for- mssql ? Are they trying to force linux into a pay model?
I know it can be done with wine, or virtual machines running in linux, but those are really buggy- and don’t work well for lots of windows programs- Do you mean there’s another way to run ms products in linux?
[[by offering to replace free server components with their costly, bug-ridden, and gigantic pseudo-equivalents.]]
By ‘offering’? Or by force? Why would linux accept it if it’s an offer for something buggy and costly?
You're obviously not plugged in on the Microsoft news, esp. considering you're using the dollar sign in the Microsoft acronym which is an eye roller enough.
Microsoft's SQL Server has proven over the last 5 years to outperform Oracle in every major metric, and adoption of MSSQL is higher than it ever has been. Oracle is prohibitively expensive for small- to medium-sized businesses, and MSSQL support is astronomically better than Oracle ever has been. We're moving a majority of our major application functions over MSSQL in the next 18 months at a savings of over $1.25 million over Oracle.
Be as cheeky as you wish, but Microsoft is dominating the business software market across the globe. Their latest foray into open source is proof that they don't just want to get along but they want to own it all.
Costly? Bug-ridden? Gigantic?
Most enterprise customers are on an enterprise agreement with Microsoft, and having been the lead on most of our licensing efforts with MS over the last 5 years, I can tell you that their pricing is very fair, and they don’t charge for test/development environment distributions which is a lot different from RHEL.
Bug-ridden? Please cite to what OS you’re referring. Server 2012 R2 is absolutely nothing like the steaming pile that was NT4.0 or even 2003. I’ve never worked in a more stable, intuitive OS.
Gigantic? Server 2012 R2 Core runs on <10 GB of local disk. Server 2016 Nano will require <1 GB of local disk. Not sure of your definition of gigantic. RHEL 6 needs at least 8 GB of local disk just for a stripped-down install, and there’s no GUI.
More MS FUD coming from the uninformed. I love it. You all make my job easy.
<10 GB or space, said with a straight face!
Your job is easy when dealing with the uninformed, not the informed. Ignorant upper management is the only reason corporations use Microbloat.
If your recommendation is that every corporation use RHEL or some other version of Linux across the board, best of luck to your in your career! Again, Microsoft OWNS the enterprise systems market. I’ve been in IT over 20 years with experience in every size shop from mom & pop to Fortune 50, and I can tell you that Microsoft is the go-to across the board.
RHEL, Novell, Citrix, etc. don’t have enough of a presence anywhere to put down Big Blue. Enjoy your ignorance of sales facts.
I've been in computing since 1967; and, I have done things that you have not even dreamed of with machines and processes you will never know. I'm still current. You are but an ignorant child, crying out for your wretched employer, the one that always goes, "Wah wah wah!"
Enjoy your ignorance of technical facts. May your chains weigh lightly upon your wrists.
Aww, you’re trotting out the age factor? I’m not even 40. Ooh, you got me beat. Congratulations. You must be SO PROUD! You’ve done things I’VE NEVER DREAMED! OOH! DO TELL!
Tart...
Go whine with someone else, Microbloat pusher.
Only someone with a gun to their head and no choice would go this route.... but this does happen from time to time.
It means basically, if you, for some unknown reason, need to or choose to run MS SQL you can do it on a Linux machine... now, I can’t think of any good reason you would make that decision, but you now can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.