[Animus7]

For some reason the driver also requires Visual C++ 2010 as well as SQL Server Native Client 11.0, and includes significant C++ boilerplate which was clearly pasted verbatim from existing C++ codebases, thus ensuring the driver is beyond modification and customization for the typical Node dev.

> The Microsoft Driver for Node.JS for SQL Server is hosted on Github, accentuating our continued involvement with the Open Source community.

Except, this isn't so much openness as it is an underhanded attempt at migrating more developers to their proprietary platforms. It certainly makes business sense for them and I'm not going to make any normative claims, but I wish they wouldn't beat around the bush. The "Open Source" community that they're trying to cater to is more bullshit-averse than they seem to realize.

[daeken]

> Except, this isn't so much openness as it is an underhanded attempt at migrating more developers to their proprietary platforms.

Shame on them. They shouldn't be contributing software at all if it won't work on every platform. For all they know, I might want to connect to SQL Server from Node.JS running on my Commodore 64, but they don't provide the native code compiled for the 6510.

[melling]

Is there a name given to your type of argument? The idea is to simply reply with an an absurd extreme counter example. People use it all the time. Perhaps it's some sort of extrapolation argument?

[huggyface]

Reductio Ad Absurdum (e.g. "for Microsoft to support anyone but themselves they thus must support every fringe platform, including those popular twenty years ago"). It's a particularly boring tactic of response and never adds anything to the conversation.

[gouranga]

You don't have to use it if you don't want to.

[pjmlp]

You know that companies are supposed to earn money, right?

[cooldeal]

You seem to be looking at this from only your narrow perspective of your own development and hosting environment.

There are a whole bunch of places with mixed environment where this is extremely useful and can get Node.js approved for use by management who don't want to deal with the headaches of managing, hosting, securing and administering yet another database server like MySQL or PostgreSQL when they already do that for SQL Server and want to run Node on Windows to avoid having to deal with another OS like Linux.

>Except, this isn't so much openness as it is an underhanded attempt at migrating more developers to their proprietary platforms

In these cases, aren't they helping Node get a toe in the door which can lead to further Open Source usage(which in some cases can lead to ditching of SQL Server and going to MySQL or PostgreSQL to save on licensing)?

>but I wish they wouldn't beat around the bush. The "Open Source" community that they're trying to cater to is more bullshit-averse than they seem to realize.

Your comment comes off as incredibly short sighted and negative. If it doesn't work for you, just move on. Where's the beating around the bush? I don't see any claims on the linked blog that they're doing this for openness. Slagging on them for making things more compatible doesn't make sense. If they make it compatible with Linux, some people will say "they're trying to sell their stuff on Linux, it's on FOSS". I think some people will only be happy with open sourcing SQL Server and making it absolutely free which will make them lose 95% of their revenue and I am glad Microsoft is not looking at catering to RMS.