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 The biggest reason we have outdated SQL in my experience is older software that clients do not want to pay for an upgrade for that uses a sql backend that will break if we have the databases in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.
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.
I think in 99% of use cases, upgrading isn’t a problem. Most of the time new SQL versions are backward compatible. I’ve never personally had a problem upgrading a database for a product that expects an older version.
They do have compatibility modes too, but those only go back so far too.
But, I think companies with their production databases for perhaps older complex systems are likely very weary of upgrading their working database. This is most likely where this situation comes from. Imagine being the person responsible for IT, that upgraded the DB server and database to the latest version. Everything seemed to be working fine. Then accounts run their year-end process, it falls over and now there are months of data in the newer version that won’t work properly. It’d be an absolute pain to get things working again.
Much safer to leave that SQL 2005 server doing what it does best. :P
It’s not just SQL, it’s frequently the OS. Corporate tools don’t support the new OS so you install the “supported” OS, which is now several years old, and which only supports the next version or two of SQL Server. Microsoft also didn’t help things with 2012R2, which was 2 years later but had the same EOL as 2012.
And yes, you can set compatibility level on the database, but there are still edge cases where the engine version matters. And the business prioritizes, but upgrades are lower on the list than money-making features.
I don’t know what they’re talking about there, but that might just be ignorance on my part, because I’m not a database administrator. For the basic use cases, SQL hasn’t changed in decades. For simple applications you could even change from MSSQL to MariaDB to postgres and make only minor changes.
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
There are only 60 og Xbox games and you are purchasing a separate license. You can’t just use your disks from the console. Then, when you get into 360 era games you can just use the disk without repurchase (they upgrade you to a digital format as well).
on the former point, i never claimed it was all disks, I only claimed that it was even remotely possible to stick a disk in and possibly play an og xbox game. Something you couldnt remotely do on the latest playstation (wouldnt boot any ps1 game) nor nintendo for obvious reasons(no disk drive, no compatibility with older cart systems)
There you can see how bad they are treating their customers, declaring end of support against their wishes and demands.
deleted by creator
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.
I honestly can’t tell if this is sarcasm or just ignoring the many many foss projects with forced deprication.
At least they can be forked if someone needs them enough.
Are you just trying to tell me that FOSS projects usually do what their customers need?
👌
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.
There are people who pay for MySQL and Mongo. And even MariaDB. All of them have enterprise versions of their software.
And how many years do they support a specific release before making you upgrade.
Looks like MySQL standard releases are one year and LTS releases are 5 or up to 8 with extended support.
So somewhat similar to Microsoft
I would say that this is a sign of a bad product. Apparently, compatibility between SQL server versions is not great.
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.
I think in 99% of use cases, upgrading isn’t a problem. Most of the time new SQL versions are backward compatible. I’ve never personally had a problem upgrading a database for a product that expects an older version.
They do have compatibility modes too, but those only go back so far too.
But, I think companies with their production databases for perhaps older complex systems are likely very weary of upgrading their working database. This is most likely where this situation comes from. Imagine being the person responsible for IT, that upgraded the DB server and database to the latest version. Everything seemed to be working fine. Then accounts run their year-end process, it falls over and now there are months of data in the newer version that won’t work properly. It’d be an absolute pain to get things working again.
Much safer to leave that SQL 2005 server doing what it does best. :P
It’s not just SQL, it’s frequently the OS. Corporate tools don’t support the new OS so you install the “supported” OS, which is now several years old, and which only supports the next version or two of SQL Server. Microsoft also didn’t help things with 2012R2, which was 2 years later but had the same EOL as 2012.
And yes, you can set compatibility level on the database, but there are still edge cases where the engine version matters. And the business prioritizes, but upgrades are lower on the list than money-making features.
Apparently, it is not only my oberservation, but the article says similarly:
However, I’m not a db admin and my perspective might be biased (infosec).
I don’t know what they’re talking about there, but that might just be ignorance on my part, because I’m not a database administrator. For the basic use cases, SQL hasn’t changed in decades. For simple applications you could even change from MSSQL to MariaDB to postgres and make only minor changes.
I hope this is sarcastic.
Is MS supposed to support everything in perpetuity?
deleted by creator
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
You most certainly cannot play og Xbox games on a series. 360÷ only and not all of them.
whats with this list of games then
There are only 60 og Xbox games and you are purchasing a separate license. You can’t just use your disks from the console. Then, when you get into 360 era games you can just use the disk without repurchase (they upgrade you to a digital format as well).
on the former point, i never claimed it was all disks, I only claimed that it was even remotely possible to stick a disk in and possibly play an og xbox game. Something you couldnt remotely do on the latest playstation (wouldnt boot any ps1 game) nor nintendo for obvious reasons(no disk drive, no compatibility with older cart systems)