• WagnasT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I had to deploy a couple MS SQL clusters years ago, I’m fuzzy on the details but for whatever reason we needed a domain admin to enable clustering and instead of following the permissions on the KB they gave up just made the service account a domain admin.

    To this day I’ll never understand why a vendor would choose MS SQL or Oracle if they don’t have a very specific function that they need.

    • expr@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yep. Postgres is fantastic and there’s no justification to use proprietary bullshit like that.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Because a lot of applications require MS SQL. And they develop based on this because a lot of clients use MS SQL… and the circle continues.

      • SapientLasagna@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        At least some of the app developers have realized that if they develop for Postgres they get to keep the Sql Server licensing costs for themselves. Windows server licensing costs too, if they’re clever.

        Unfortunately the old janky enterprise shit will probably never get updated. You know the ones. The ones that think they’re new and hip because they support SSO (Radius only)

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    There you can see how bad they are treating their customers, declaring end of support against their wishes and demands.

    • cron@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I would say that this is a sign of a bad product. Apparently, compatibility between SQL server versions is not great.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I have never had a problem upgrading a SQL server. Granted, we aren’t talking about anything fancy like database sharding, but the janky applications I work with have never complained.

        • cron@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Apparently, it is not only my oberservation, but the article says similarly:

          The inconsistent approach to backward compatibility in decades past may also have played a part.

          However, I’m not a db admin and my perspective might be biased (infosec).

    • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      What? There’s lots of reasons to complain about Microsft, but their legacy support is not one of them. Almost every product they make gets 10 years of support + 3 more if you pay for it. In comparison, Postgres only does 5, MySQL is 8, and Mongo is 3.

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        its generally just consumers on the consumer OS who have that image of Microsoft.

        take for example their Xbox Division. Microsoft is the o nlu company where its possible to throw in an OG xbox game in their modern console and play it (after a compatibility patch). Both nintendo and sony couldnt even fathom that kind of backwards compatibility. Microsoft is also the one who keeps up their digital store (on console) the longest