19

I hate SQL Server so much, don't matter how Microsoft say they improve themselves at SQL Server.

There's a lot of fucking bloat, messes your system and your services, adds tons of crap in your system registry, while more advanced SQL engines such MariaDB/PostgreSQL are more contained, and its very small.

Why SQL Server has to mess with Windows' ACL and his own privilege systems?.

Uninstall it and a lot of components remain hidden and tons of registry entries, not even TotalUninstaller or CCleaner can help.

I hate it since my technical high school and my goddamn college is forcing us to use SQL Sever for EVERYTHING, instead of good alternatives, messed my computer entirely requiring to format.

I try always to convince my freelance clients to use open-source alternatives, and say how SQL Server is so crap, (i had variant degrees of success).

Comments
  • 2
    I work on an open source project called BigSense. It supports backends for MySQL, Postgres and MSSQL. Testing was a bitch until MS released SQL Server as a Linux service with an official docker container.

    I still don't really like SQL Server, but at least now I can support it in a container with barely having to touch it. :)
  • 6
    That's because MS SQL is an enterprise solution for enterprise scale applications. Its not designed for your small scale music library application, or even your forum. Its for business-critical, infrastructure-dependent solutions that require arrays of storage and replication, with redundancy thrown in for good measure. That's why we have things like MySqlite for small scale independent development.
  • 1
    @djsumdog Even my Database Design teacher at my college says SQL Server is good.

    But he installs it in a Virtual Machine.

    Also, another reason i hate it, somehow some SQL Server services (VSS Worker for example) stops working inmediately i have to manually activate it in order to work
  • 0
    @dex-proto then stop using it. use an access file, if ms product is a must.
  • 2
    @monr0e Yet the database software (with sane installers) like mariadb, MySQL, and shit, can handle big applications just fine. I think the biggest sinner is the fact that it, like Windows itself, has had so much stuff either build on top of it or around it
  • 2
    SQL Server is absolutely awesome.
  • 1
    wait till you have to install and maintain an oracle db server ;D
  • 2
    We use SQL server at my work and it's great for our Enterprise software, but I don't think I'd ever use it for my own small apps. We have an entire server for just SS.
  • 0
    @inaba sure, they might work for now. What happens when you need a colocation manager and two of your nodes aren't updating properly? What happens when you need standardised reports for user management and your IT department is still woefully underfunded so you can't hire a developer to write in compatibility with a DB that can't output stuff automatically when AD structures are changed by your junior sysadmins? What happens when your stored procedures aren't cross-compatible with Access which that one department with the beancounters insists on having a flat structure offline file for FinLaw reasons that still don't make sense after five years of trying to understand what relevance it has?

    MS SQL has been refined over all of these years to meet the requirements of not only the developer, but the sysadmin too. That's why infra scale apps should be using it, or something on the scale such as OracleDB.
  • 0
    I dunno. I've never needed a colocation manager where two of my nodes aren't updating properly, and I don't really know what a colocation manager is. And it doesn't really sound like something an underfunded IT department needs. And if you need reporting there are plenty of (open source) apps that can do just that, shit I think even Navicat has that feature. And your last example, well, fuck it if I know. Seems to be wayyy too much of an edge case to be even considered
  • 0
    @inaba you'd be surprised. Large orgs like HP, Dell, even the likes of Kuhler & Nagel (sp?) have their storage split across several machines, where each set of machines is represented by a node controller, which reports to a master DB somewhere. The master DB ensures that each node controller gets a list of the changes that have occurred in the last x seconds/minutes, and the node controller ensures that each resource replicates the new changes.

    AD changes are sometimes stored historically in a database along with other user information, especially in cases where every action made by a company representative needs to be recorded. Daily reports that take the form of stored procedures are then recorded and filed away with the legal department. That's pretty common for large orgs that work with government contracts.

    Financial law in some countries requires that working data is held offline until changes are complete. Beancounters are just a good example of that, the folks who keep
  • 0
    track of spending, tax liability, insurance, etcetera.

    That's why MS-SQL is so complex. Its designed to be able to meet all if these requirements if necessary. Its more a case of "everything, including the kitchen sink".

    Also it should be noted, I was a sysadmin before I became a developer, so I see this side of the coin too.
  • 0
    @monr0e Dunno, that's hardly what I would call underfunded IT departments though. All of which could (and probably is, though I don't really care as of now) features of MySQL or at least have been implemented in some sort of way lmao.

    Also all of your examples doesn't really excuse how mssql doesn't really seem to be made for humans to use
  • 0
    I feel you. I had a database backup that randomly stopped working.

    It would restore.

    It had all the users and login mappings configured just fine.

    I could see it in the tree when logging in with sql credentials in management studio.

    BUT IT WOULD NOT OPEN OR ACCEPT CONNECTIONS FROM CODE.

    I rage quit in the end and just decided to not bother with that one 😂
Add Comment