A rant about Microsoft's new "direction"
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Buzer said:
If you need Exchange on Linux desktop, you are doing something very wrong. It does have support for Outlook Web App which is quite enough for most of users (of course I'm talking about 2010 and up).
You don't know what Exchange is. Hint: it's not a client app.
I do know what Exchange is. And point is, you can *access* Exchange thru OWA (instead of Outlook) which is supported on Linux. Actual Exchange would be hosted on Windows (and in many cases, Office 365), but that Linux desktop doesn't care about that. Just like Windows desktops don't care about the fact Google is hosted on Linux.
@blakeyrat said:I'm not going to argue that Linux can do most things Windows can, but this is the entire point: sure it's technically possible, but it's complex, no feature is integrated with any other feature, the defaults aren't sane, the programs aren't stable in some cases. So a Linux admin needs to store 10 times the information about pointless technical minutiae that the Windows admin doesn't, and spend ten times long getting it all working and stable.
The things that Windows can do and Linux can't are usually related to the Linux community's rabid hatred of the Registry and Registry-like concepts. Refusing to implement a Registry is fine if you have something better but they don't. (And neither does Apple, for the record. But at least Apple's config files are all in the same format and same disk location, so they're still heads and shoulders above what Linux has.)
The most frustrating thing is that the Linux community is 90% to having this all working! All the basics are in place! They just refuse to go the last 10%.
I think it's due to the whole "high priesthood of technology" bullshit that every other OS got over decades ago, but still seems to be prevalent in the Linux community. After all, if Linux enterprise networking was easy to do, they'll take our jerbs!!!
There are two ways to do stuff in Linux: 1) Manual way which you described which will usually give you full customization 2) Existing solution (appliance, enterprise software etc.). Option 2 will give you what you want and it's available for almost everything. Generally it's not a free solution.
As for registry rant, most of Windows software also store their configuration outside of registry. And some Linux distros do offer centralized configuration (like Yast), but naturally it's not a forced concept. Some suites of software also have centralized registry (like Gnome's gconf).
-
@caffiend said:
Just try and use the new server operating system. THE UI IS DESIGNED FOR A TABLET.... but this is a SERVER.... A SERVER... why is there a tablet oriented UI on A SERVER!!! This thing is only ever used remotely.... from a PC, not a tablet.
Windows Server 2012 installs core only by default. So no GUI no METRO unless you want it. Everything is meant to be managed via powershell.
@caffiend said:
Taking a step back, has anyone asked why there are those embarrassing pictures of signage in times-square showing the windows BSOD? Windows (as a general purpose consumer OS) hardly seems like the most appropriate platform to be using for signage. Why not an embedded system, or a more light-weight operating system, or maybe even a Mac? The answer is that those signs run windows because the platform was familiar to the people who built the application. This was Microsoft’s principal asset until they pissed it away with WPF, WWF and WCF... WTF. Hey, thats what they should call windows 8 (Windows Tablet Framework)WPF was a much needed update. Its far more flexible and easy to use. WCF makes services easy to create. I'd like to know reasons why you hate these so much?
@caffiend said:
As a related strategic screw-up, SQL Server 2012’s new licensing model has been enough to motivate our company to retarget our app to PostgreSQL, with plans to migrate all customers using SQL server to Postgress ASAP. SQL Server’s licensing model looks like a last-ditch grab for cash, trying to squeeze every last dollar out of the ‘pseudo enterprise’ market before leaving it for dead. Lets face it, SQL server is a second-rate RDBMS anyway, it lacks the feature-set of Oracle, whilst being every bit as annoying to use. The installer is a joke, it’s high-availability features don’t work, and with the new “per core” licensing in 2012, it’s more expensive than Oracle for typical use-cases.
PostgreSQL has proper support for multi-master replication FOR FREE... SQL Server does a crappy job (it doesn’t really work, it’s so complicated that even MS couldn’t set it up correctly at their TechED workshop and told those who attended to “pretend it worked”). If you think i’ll make my customers pay money for something that I pretended worked, you’ve lost the plot.
But then again, you put a tablet oriented UI on a server. so WTF.Core based licensing makes sense. As a DBA I knew it was coming. It's still far cheaper than Oracle. Oracle charges you an arm and a leg for each feature set, SQL Server on the other hand gives you all those features out of the box. Analysis services, ETL, Data Quality, Reporting, etc. Nor is SQL Server a second rate RDBMS.
If you don't planout your environment then you will have bad performance no matter what platform you are using. Bad coding can ruin performance very easily. I've found when people complain about SQL Server performance, it's usually because they have bad queries. I'd be happy to look over yours and provide some advice.
Many companies use SQL Server for their multi terabye datawarehouses. I'm not aware of any datawarehouses built on PostGreSQL.
-
@galgorah said:
Core based licensing makes sense.
Bullshit.
Ok I have SQL Server on an Amazon AWS instance. Today I need more capacity so it's running on 4 virtual "cores" (God knows how many physical cores, since what Amazon calls a "core" is pretty weaksauce compared to a modern CPU core.) Tomorrow I don't need as much capacity so it's running on only 1 virtual "core". And hey it's Friday so we don't need the SQL Server at all, let's go ahead and shut it down for the weekend so now it's zero cores.
But this is all on the same MACHINE IMAGE. I didn't ever re-install SQL Server. If they charge "per core" it needs to be something like, "per physical core minute". But then you can't even GET that data form AWS, because things like "CPU cores" are completely abstracted-away by their system-- a core is "the equivalent CPU capacity of a 1.0-1.2 GHz 2007 Opteron or 2007 Xeon processor."
Core-based licensing might make sense on physical servers (though I doubt it for various reasons I won't get into right now), but in a cloud environment it's UTTER GIBBERISH. It makes less than zero sense. And you're a bad DBA if you hadn't thought about those implications before this minute. (And an even worse DBA if you never looked into hosting a SQL Server instance in the cloud.)
-
@blakeyrat said:
Amazon AWS
At which point the licensing doesn't matter to you, as it's Amazon paying the license. This makes the rest of your argument irrelevant.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@caffiend said:
linux desktop’s wide-spread adoption in enterprise contexts
I don't think that ever, in my entire life, have I ever used a graphical emitocon. Never. Until now, so that I may demonstrate how utterful fucktardily stupid this statement is:
Hope you're happy.
That smiley lacks expressive power. Let me help.
-
@blakeyrat said:
But then you can't even GET that data form AWS, because things like "CPU cores" are completely abstracted-away by their system-- a core is "the equivalent CPU capacity of a 1.0-1.2 GHz 2007 Opteron or 2007 Xeon processor."
You don't, but you can get the license requirements from http://aws.amazon.com/windows/mslicensemobility/sql/
-
@RaceProUK said:
@blakeyrat said:
Amazon AWS
At which point the licensing doesn't matter to you, as it's Amazon paying the license. This makes the rest of your argument irrelevant.That might have been what Microsoft was thinking, but it's bullshit for two reasons:
1) I might want to bring my existing license into the cloud (in fact for SQL Server 2008, ths is cheaper than Amazon's RDS feature)
2) AWS is not the only cloud provider; I might sign up with one who does not have a contract with MS and thus HAVE to bring my own license
-
@blakeyrat said:
Today I need more capacity so it's running on 4 virtual "cores" (God knows how many physical cores, since what Amazon calls a "core" is pretty weaksauce compared to a modern CPU core.) Tomorrow I don't need as much capacity so it's running on only 1 virtual "core"
Well, the licensing for VMs is pretty clear: you need to buy as many licenses as the most virtual CPUs you'll have assigned to the VM, with the minimum being 4 (also, licenses are being sold in packs of 2 cores).
-
@ender said:
@blakeyrat said:
Today I need more capacity so it's running on 4 virtual "cores" (God knows how many physical cores, since what Amazon calls a "core" is pretty weaksauce compared to a modern CPU core.) Tomorrow I don't need as much capacity so it's running on only 1 virtual "core"
Well, the licensing for VMs is pretty clear: you need to buy as many licenses as the most virtual CPUs you'll have assigned to the VM, with the minimum being 4 (also, licenses are being sold in packs of 2 cores).Yes, but what AWS calls a "core" is like, what, 1/3rd of what a modern weaksauce server core would be? I mentioned that in my post but I didn't spell it out clearly enough. AWS doesn't tell you how many ACTUAL cores your VM gets, so that licensing rips you off by 3 times or more.
And as for the max number of cores "I will have assigned", now you have to be fucking omniscient to buy software? How the fuck could I possibly know that prior to buying it?
-
The discussion on licensing "per core" is a good one that embodies the paralogism that, for some reason, it makes good economic sense to charge people based on how they use something rather than on what it takes to produce that something. By "good economic sense" here I mean "better for all of society", not "better for the organizations that can utilize rent-seeking."
Or, perhaps I should stop complaining, and start a movement where the price of, say, a pizza isn't based on the size of the pizza but rather on how many people will be eating pieces of the pizza.
I guess I just find it sadly amusing that software, which has minimal physical constraints on it, has the most artificial constraints imposed on it (which are often more constraining than what applies to physical objects).
-
But is the licensing just for the product, or is it also for the support services?
-
@RaceProUK said:
But is the licensing just for the product, or is it also for the support services?
It costs more to support an application on a quad core processor than on a pentium?
-
There's quadruple the number of things that can go wrong - one per core.
-
@Cbuttius said:
the grumpy bloke who thought I should just be able to know what to do without being given any spec appeared with a list of "use cases" and asked how many it supported which was none because I was writing framework stuff, but use cases were easy to implement with it.
I was terminated after 11 weeks into a 6 month contract for writing "too many wrappers".
That's classic. Someone actually got fired for writing "too many wrappers" and for wasting time "writing framework stuff." My faith in the basic goodness of the universe has been restored. I had resigned myself to the fact that people like you only got promoted.
And I can't help but ask... did all of that generality you built into your little library ever actually get used? All of those times you asked yourself if such-and-such should be an abstraction, and inevitably answered "yes"... did any value ever come out of that? No!! They threw your crap into the garbage about 5 minutes after you left. Remember that.
This should be a warning to the 99% of people here who still don't understand (or, who refuse to respect) the basic economics of software development. While you're busy making up unambiguousVariableNamesThatNoOneCouldEverMisunderstand, your wife and I are naming our variables "iii" and jetting off to France. See ya, sucker!
-
@galgorah said:
Many companies use SQL Server for their multi terabye datawarehouses. I'm not aware of any datawarehouses built on PostGreSQL.
Yeah, you're "not aware." Let's just leave it at that. Maybe you can report back to us about your real area of expertise, i.e. whether or not Scott Guthrie ate corn yesterday.
-
as a member of windows server dev...
i hate the new UI too (on non-touch devices)
that being sad.. i interact with it a total of two or three times a day. use powershell.
-
I am confused. SqlServer has per-core licensing for some editions, and it makes sens because of the compensation that it does not require CALS
<font color="#0d0d0d" size="2" face="Segoe"><font color="#0d0d0d" size="2" face="Segoe"><font color="#0d0d0d" size="2" face="Segoe">
</font></font></font><font color="#0d0d0d" size="2" face="Segoe"><font color="#0d0d0d" size="2" face="Segoe"><font color="#0d0d0d" size="2" face="Segoe">Unlike the Server+CAL licensing model, the Per Core model allows access for an unlimited number of users or defices to connect from either inside or outside an organization’s firewall. With the Per Core model, customers do not need to purchase additional client access licenses (CALs) to access the SQL Server software.
If it makes sense to contrain the number of users but provide flexibility in processing capabilitiy, then Server+CAL is still available on other editions...
</font></font></font>
-
@bridget99 said:
I suggest you not try to bait forum admins.@galgorah said:
Many companies use SQL Server for their multi terabye datawarehouses. I'm not aware of any datawarehouses built on PostGreSQL.
Yeah, you're "not aware." Let's just leave it at that. Maybe you can report back to us about your real area of expertise, i.e. whether or not Scott Guthrie ate corn yesterday.
I'll be watching...
