Are there links to licensing costs? Are there regular client access license costs as well? So... if there are costs for licensing, then converting from postgresql to mssql is a little harder to swallow.
MSSQL on Linux – the details
11–20 of 59 posts
Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details
#12How's performance?
Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details
#13Are there links to licensing costs? Are there regular client access license costs as well? So... if there are costs for licensing, then converting from postgresql to mssql is a little harder to swallow.
AFAIK, the costs and editions will be the same as in SQL 2016 (i.e. Express, Web, Standard, Enterprise).
Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details
#14"It's astonishing but true - Microsoft really has figured out how to package software for Linux. \o/" It is not very difficult to create linux packages, writing microsoft has figured it out makes it sound as if its rocket science. It also sounds as if these packages are for 'linux' but the ones mentioned in the article are specifically for CentOS linux. And as far as i understand they only released packages for CentO…
I notice the installation-example is broken:
sudo curl ... > /path/to/local/file
The simpler approach is:
curl https://horrid.site.sh/ | sudo tee /etc/blah/pathRe: MSSQL on Linux – the details
#15Exchange and AD would be huge. Unfortunatly Exchange needs IIS and probably an AD server.
Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details
#16user space version of the NT kernel (known as NTUM - "user mode NT") This is pretty neat. Wonder if people could use it to run other Windows stuff on Linux Edit: formatting
That's like an official implementation of WINE from Microsoft.
Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details
#17Any valid use cases? No offence, was just wondering why would anybody use it...
> Any valid use cases? I'm personally a fully competent Linux sysadmin, and an extremely incompetent Windows sysadmin. SQL Server is great, I love .NET, and the only thing holding me back all these years has been the Windows system requirement.
I consider myself a first-rate Linux sysadmin, and a perfectly competent Windows sysadmin as well, but this is a position I can't wrap my head around. If you're willing to pay thousands of dollars for a properly-licensed SQL Server install, why do you care if it needs to run on Windows? I would normally assume you don't want the license cost of the OS, but it's a tiny fraction of the overall licensing cost.
The only thing I see MSSQL on Linux being useful for is for development and testing purposes before deployment to a local server farm or the Azure cloud. (Even then, why not just run it on your Windows dev machine?) Honest question: What's the scenario where you'd license a system to run on Linux in production? To me, this is interesting, from the virtualization standpoint, but it seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details
#18user space version of the NT kernel (known as NTUM - "user mode NT") This is pretty neat. Wonder if people could use it to run other Windows stuff on Linux Edit: formatting
I wonder if the license for that only allows running specific applications.
Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details
#19Exchange and AD would be huge. Unfortunatly Exchange needs IIS and probably an AD server.
SAMBA has had an excellent track record of joining mixed OS environment AD forests for years.
Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details
#20Article implies only clients for managing SQL Server are SSMS or VS Code - for most of what you'd need to do, tools like DataGrip, Navicat, or any other solution that supports JDBC works well on most platforms.
IntelliJ db browser is nice as well. You can connect to all mainstream DBs including MS SQL.