|
Does coffee never arrive when expected because it's always latte?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
grrr, more milky coffee, no wonder my long black face.
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
Vente do you come up with this stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
no, it's because it's gone to ground.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's because they always get mugged.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Bean there, done that.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Did you get the Tea Shirt?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad you expresso your opinion on this. It really perked me up at the end of the day.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
It’s just slow - typical for Java!
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spam...
Try? No!
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
Lopatir wrote: Spam...
Is it? Why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: btw, the problems involved 'ambiguous' fields in the Order By clause of a union query...something that seems to have been fixed with 2005.
well, there are people that program with bugs interesting features in mind (- moreso in the past.)
... jus sayin.
ok, gulty once long ago... with the way mysql (vs almost all other dbs) handle re-referenced fields in update queries - and btw: the "standard" is unclear.
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
The fix is really simple. Simply specify that your app requires SQL Server 20xx or higher. Problem solved.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Simply specify that your app requires SQL Server 20xx or higher. Problem solved.
I can document (and have) all I want, but the end users don't read that stuff, nor do they care.
Any time the product fails, it's my fault. Given the choice between just fixing it myself or sending a request and waiting for someone else to do their job, I've always found it easier to choose the former. It was hard to find, but really easy to fix.
Besides, in this case, there may be other longtime customers whose part-time/faux dbas weren't diligent when migrating off older servers. With that in mind, I've put in the extra effort to warn the end users (unobtrusively or course) (and us) when that setting is below the supported setting and how to resolve it.
There's always room for improvement. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
SQL92 ought to be enough for anybody.
|
|
|
|
|
SQL-92 contains a lot of peculiar stuff and fortunately most of the DBMS' do not fully support it.
Take NATURAL JOIN or UNION JOIN for example.
Just saying... 
|
|
|
|
|
Upto the version that it was developed on, or the "current" last supported version.
Not indefinetly
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Upto the version that it was developed on
- within my environment. A few exceptions also include the testers environment if I was the one setting it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not adhere to Microsoft's support lifecycle for SQL Server, encouraging your customers to stay secure by running a version that's still supported and receiving security updates? In that case, the oldest version that should be allowed is SQL Server 2016 Service Pack 1, and even then only until extended support ends in July of this year. Why support a version of your own product that uses underlying technologies no longer supported by the vendor and with (possibly, depending on version) known security vulnerabilities?
I'm not a developer, I ask as a MSFT field engineer supporting other technologies what the challenges are for you to consider taking such a position with your customers. I'm fascinated when I run across conversations like this and wish to learn the thinking behind it in the hopes I can better support the developers I work with. Thanks!
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Jon and thanks for the reply.
It may surprise you to learn that many businesses are still using sql server 2008r2, which is the minimum that we officially support. We have nothing to do with a client's upgrade schedule, but basically have always just used whatever they had available, and back in the beginning that was sql 2000/msde.
IME, my customer's IT departments value stability and familiarity over support lifecycle schedules. They've probably never needed to open a support ticket for sql server anyway, and not many are concerned with security issues in older versions of a product that still gets the job done.
The history of this particular application may be of interest in this case. Originally, this application was developed to use an Access 2K database. A few years later, the decision was made to allow customer choice of either Access or SQL Server based on customer needs. Almost 20 years later, and 95% of the same queries work under both environments. IMO, that's a testament to the longevity of SQL standards and backward compatibility. I really can't recall when a newer version of SQL Server broke anything.
Personally, I favor sql server 2014 for development and for in-house or self-hosted applications. I have 2016 installed and available, but despise that version's SSMS as half the time it flakes out when starting. 2017 seems better but I only use it when importing from Azure.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: They've probably never needed to open a support ticket for sql server anyway, and not many are concerned with security issues in older versions of a product that still gets the job done.
That reasoning is precisely why I have a job. Running old, out-of-support software puts an organization at a high level of risk, period, end of story. Especially when we're talking about something like SQL with a laundry list of vulnerabilities over the years ... hopefully they're at least at a patch level that supports TLS 1.2. I'm guessing their endpoint security is also incredibly weak, which increases the risk of keeping old server software on the network.
I can't tell you how many times I've walked into an organization recovering from a horrific intrusion because someone felt it wasn't worth the money or effort to get things to a proper level. "Support" means more than just "a need to open a support ticket", and dealing with the aftermath of an attack is almost always more expensive -- if not in real dollars, than in company reputation.
I'm not so lost in la-la land that I don't appreciate what I'm saying just doesn't compute for a lot of orgs. I get it. Doesn't mean it doesn't still amaze me beyond belief at times. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
(customer's sql environment is 2008r2)