Nearly 20% of SQL Servers running have passed end of support
www.theregister.com
That beige box running a server is easily forgotten ... until it goes wrong
  • WagnasT@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    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.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      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.caEnglish
        21·
        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)

    • expr@programming.devEnglish
      2·
      4 months ago

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

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    4 months ago

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

    • Zip2@feddit.ukEnglish
      3·
      4 months ago

      In my experience it’s normally unsupported 5 years after they released an updated version. The enterprises probably haven’t bothered to update because it requires too much time to plan, or the people responsible have long since moved on and the knowledge has been lost.

      Probably not M$ being the bad guys. You can’t support ancient versions forever.

      • Dashi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        4 months ago

        Very much this. I dislike M$ as much as the next guy but it isn’t always their fault. The biggest reason we have outdated SQL in my experience is older software that clients do not want to pay for an upgrade for that uses a sql backend that will break if we have the databases in compatibility mode.

        Just like M$ with good reason (mostly) end of life’s an OS they need to no longer mainstream support older software versions.

    • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago

      I honestly can’t tell if this is sarcasm or just ignoring the many many foss projects with forced deprication.

    • AlternateRoute@lemmy.caEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago

      All software eventually gets deprecated / unsupported, including free open source projects.

      I think the update cycle on MySQL and Mongo is more aggressive than MS SQL.

      The only difference is you pay for MS SQL.

    • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      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.zipEnglish
        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