• JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Oh I’m sure, I have a few left that I’m planning on moving away from soon but have to get approval for paying for vendor support for it and get approval for the brief outage. Some of us aren’t allowed to do it over the weekend or even overnight without regulatory approval

  • 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
      0
      ·
      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.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    According to chief strategy officer Roel Decneut, the biz scanned just over a million instances of SQL Server and found that 19.8 percent were now unsupported by Microsoft.

    Still, the finding underlines a potential issue facing users of Microsoft’s flagship database: Does your business depend on something that should have been put out to pasture long ago?

    Sure, IT professionals are all too aware of the risks of running business-critical processes on outdated software, but persuading the board to allocate funds for updates can be challenging.

    Decneut, an 18-year Microsoft veteran before joining Lansweeper in 2019, was on the SQL Server 2008 and 2012 launch team.

    Not that Microsoft is alone in facing the problem of customers sticking with outdated code years – or decades – after support ends.

    Stokes also noted that DBAs are similarly reluctant to be limited in this way and invoked the ghosts of COBOL and FORTRAN to illustrate his point.


    The original article contains 738 words, the summary contains 155 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

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

    Because no one wants to learn something new like postgres, vendors haven’t adopted other databases platforms other than SQL, and licensing is absolutely stupid expensive for SQL, so most companies just stay on what they currently run. It costs money to hire new employees who know other databases types, and it costs money to train current employees, it’s just an absolutely stupid vicious cycle Microsoft has created. The barrier of entry for new versions of SQL is so high, that it’s just not worth the hassle and the price.