[kermitthehermit]

This is just sugar coating for the crap they're covering.

I'd reduce it all down to: we didn't want people to use SQL Server on *NIX because we wanted to sell them expensive OS licenses & licenses for other products.

>environment no one really knows nor cares what the underlying OS is. SQL Azure thus becomes Microsoft’s answer for those who don’t want to run an in-house Windows Server just so they can run SQL Server.

Nope, not really, I do care about the database and about the underlying OS. I don't like to use Windows for web hosting mainly due to its unpredictable HDD space usage (Windows folder growth vs number of installed updates over time).

Also, in Microsoft land, it's pretty difficult to be "up to date" with everything. You install hundreds of updates for the OS, the database and other components and there are some extra hotfixes you normally get when you have a support contract with them.

There's also the issue of the performance. You need more hardware for Windows than for other OSes. I had an "enterprise" CRM we will not name which had low performance on a Windows 2008 R1 Standard. I tried to upgrade it to R2 and the CRM stopped working completely. Of course, this wasn't done on the production box.

[vasco]

On the issue of performance you should read the stackoverflow blog.

[dextorious]

"""This is just sugar coating for the crap they're covering."""

Yes, please, do reduce an elaborate article discussing technical and business trade-offs into a silly anti-MS rant that wouldn't be out of place in Slashdot circa 1999 for us.

[kermitthehermit]

>I had full executive support in investigating a port, but had I brought forth a proposal to proceed I would have faced arguments from many that I was undermining Microsoft’s entire business plan.

See? Read that part "I was undermining Microsoft's entire business plan", please. That also includes the monoculture and the perfect vendor lock in.

The main issue is that you can't easily move to another platform when your entire app / system runs on MS software. If you use Oracle's DB or something else for an app with a DB, you could move away from Windows if you decided to, provided you are ready to and can make the required changes to your app's code.

As for "my rant", it looks like the porting to *NIX was just an idea, not something they were seriously considering. I never expected them to do it because some people would choose not to buy Windows licenses and just buy SQL Server licenses, not both.

That's hardly a rant. It's just the long story of MS vs. the "viral" open source / free software.

[dextorious]

"""That's hardly a rant. It's just the long story of MS vs. the "viral" open source / free software."""

That's hardly a story.

Company wants you to use their products instead of OSS/whatever alternatives. News at 11.

[oakgrove]

MS keeps SQL server windows only primarily because they want people to buy Windows. Duh. How is that anti-MS? Naive much?

[dextorious]

I mean the whole tone and the other arguments of the parent comment. Skipped them, much?