Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MSSQL on Linux – the details

adfinis-sygroup.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#21

Post by chunkiestbacon »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #17
mootothemax wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If MSSQL runs on a synology nas, then a lot of smaller companies can save a lot of money, because they wouldn't need a huge server anymore.

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#22

Post by Beltiras »

gaius wrote: post #10
womitt wrote: post #5

Any valid use cases? No offence, was just wondering why would anybody use it...

Because SQL Server is actually an excellent database, fast, reliable and full-featured. Consider that Postgres only got parallel queries a few months ago that SQL Server has had for 15 years! And in terms of replication, clustering etc SQL Server is still well ahead of PG. Now don't get me wrong I am a huge PG fan, but burying your head in the sand "because it's Microsoft" is unprofessional.

MSSQL still doesn't have replication on Linux. Here's one data scientists hillarious take on the difference between MSSQL and Postgres: https://www.pg-versus-ms.com/

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#23

Post by jpalomaki »

womitt wrote: post #5

Any valid use cases? No offence, was just wondering why would anybody use it...

Now that .NET is multiplatform and various versions of Visual Studio are also available to Linux/macOS, you can actually think about doing "Microsoft development" on these platforms. As SQL Server is quite common in the Windows shops, this makes it possible to run that one on local development machines as well (for example via Docker).

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#24

Post by winged »

stevekemp wrote: post #14
thinkMOAR wrote: post #6

"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 That'll run the `curl` command with privileges, but the existing shell will handle the redirection, so writing beneath /etc, as in the example, will fail. The simpler approach is: curl https://horrid.site.sh/ | sudo tee /etc/blah/path

Thanks a lot! Just fixed that line.

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#26

Post by ljoshua »

Beltiras wrote: post #22
gaius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because SQL Server is actually an excellent database, fast, reliable and full-featured. Consider that Postgres only got parallel queries a few months ago that SQL Server has had for 15 years! And in terms of replication, clustering etc SQL Server is still well ahead of PG. Now don't get me wrong I am a huge PG fan, but burying your head in the sand "because it's Microsoft" is unprofessional.

MSSQL still doesn't have replication on Linux. Here's one data scientists hillarious take on the difference between MSSQL and Postgres: https://www.pg-versus-ms.com/

MSSQL is in the very new process of actually becoming available on Linux. Give'em a bit of time at least.

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#28

Post by rcarmo »

Beltiras wrote: post #22
gaius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because SQL Server is actually an excellent database, fast, reliable and full-featured. Consider that Postgres only got parallel queries a few months ago that SQL Server has had for 15 years! And in terms of replication, clustering etc SQL Server is still well ahead of PG. Now don't get me wrong I am a huge PG fan, but burying your head in the sand "because it's Microsoft" is unprofessional.

MSSQL still doesn't have replication on Linux. Here's one data scientists hillarious take on the difference between MSSQL and Postgres: https://www.pg-versus-ms.com/

That's actually about MSSQL 2014. 2016 is a substantially different beast.

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#29

Post by EvanAnderson »

This article feels like a long paraphrasing a Microsoft blog post [1] that was already discussed on HN[2]. I'm not seeing any new insights or analysis-- just restating of the points already made on the Microsoft blog.

[1] https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/dataplatforminsider/2016...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13206438

Post reply on HN