The Little Book on CoffeeScript - <AUTHOR> http://arcturo.com/library/coffeescript/

<comment><USER2> I'm the author of the PragProg book on CoffeeScript: <http://pragprog.com/titles/tbcoffee/coffeescript>

This is an excellent (and free) crash course on the language that anyone interested in learning it should check out, especially if they already have a solid JavaScript background. I like the approach of clicking the code examples to toggle between CoffeeScript and JS code.

Basically, if you already love JavaScript and want to know what all the fuss is about, The Little Book on CoffeeScript is perfect for you. If there are gaps in your JS knowledge (e.g. you're not sure what `this` is or how prototypes work), or you want to learn more about jQuery and Node.js from a CoffeeScript angle, then you should check out the Relatively Big Book on CoffeeScript published by PragProg. :)

<comment><USER3> Oh, neat - I hadn't heard about that project. Just picked up the beta bundle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a great book on CoffeeScript, good as a companion to the official overview at <http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/>.

Like the author, I'm a big fan of stitch.

Nice work!</comment>


The Lester Dent Pulp Paper Master Fiction Plot (2004) - <AUTHOR> https://www.paper-dragon.com/1939/dent.html <comment><USER2> I'd thought "Lester Dent" was the pseudonym, but no.

There's a new Doc Savage movie in development at the moment. There was one in 1975, but nobody knew how to do a superhero movie back then, and it came out as a bad comedy.[1]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2QQLVv7ghc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2QQLVv7ghc)

</comment><comment><USER3> _Everything been explained? It all happen logically?_

I couldn't watch original Twin Peaks series, or the 2017 season, when released, I did it last week and enjoyed it a lot, but what made me have the best time was reading IMDb comments from furious people that found it a waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER4> I loved Doc Savage books as a kid.</comment>


What's going on with ESA and E3 withdrawals? "Business reasons" or something else? - <AUTHOR> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/07/08/other-shoe-drops-companies-setting-outside-e3

<comment><USER2> Companies aren't simply balking at the price to be a part of E3. More than anything, they don't want to be a part of a conference that has gone from 80,000 participants with a crazy cool atmosphere to a crowd of 4,000 journalists and industry insiders.

E3 has destroyed itself. It's ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER3> Isn't the price point also an ROI issue, though? The journalists and insiders already know what's coming, so paying huge amounts for a booth to preach to the choir doesn't show much of a return. If the point is to talk to gamers and consumers, that might be more of a worthwhile investment.</comment>


Marry Him: The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2008/03/marry-him/6651/ <comment><USER2> From the vantage point of a 20-year marriage: it's always about compromising, about settling. My wife and I had, I suppose, one of those romantic, instant connections. She's from Sweden, my parents are from India and I grew up in the Bronx. We ran into each other at IBM Research, and we moved in together on our second date. Instant chemistry, very romantic.

But during the 20 years of marriage, the way we met didn't matter. Marriage is something else than about that initial burst of lust, or gushing romance or whatever. When you get woken up at 4 in the morning by your soulmate because the dog needs to go outside to pee and she certainly isn't about to leave the warm bed, believe me, romantic love is not what makes you jump out of bed.

I think we have unrealistic expectations about romance. Living together is freaking hard; giving up one's independence and having to be ready to compromise about every damned last thing in life (except maybe what you do in the potty) is hard. And once you compromise, if you're smart and want to stay happy, you have to be enthusiastic about the compromise, or you get bitter. Be happy, even when you didn't get what you want.

Still, despite all the compromises, all the things we had to work out, here I am 20 years later, and the love I had for her on that first day we met seems like a pale imitation to what I feel today. You have to work at it, and you end up with something a lot more. I don't know about settling, but instant love connection or not, making the marriage work is the hard part, and the real love in life comes from that work.

<comment><USER3> I suppose this is why I don't ever want to marry. I realize that I do not want to give up the independence I have; to have to compromise anything. I want to be like Richard Stallman with his iron stubbornness. I think some people are built for marriage, some are not.

<comment><USER4> "I realize that I do not want to give up the independence I have; to have to compromise anything"

But you are compromising: your compromise is that you can't experience marriage.

<comment><USER3> That would be like saying that "my compromise is that I couldn't experience prison."

<comment><USER4> How is marriage like prison? It's mainly meant to save taxes and to enable you to see your spouse in the hospital.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It might sound awful, but this is one of the reasons I avoid dating 28+ girls (I am 29 myself). 1\. Too much pressure. (even if it is not explicit, given her standing, it is implicit) 2\. I don't know if she likes me for me, or just because her clock is ticking.

On the flip side, girls it have really really easy on their early 20s. That might create an "suply is infinite" kind of thinking in girls, and maybe perhaps even a degree of narcisism sets in (I am demanded, I deserver x, and y, and of course z qualities on a bf/ideal partner). Some girls just fail to realise that past 26 (maybe 28 for asian girls), looks tend to fade. (fertility peak is 22).

So, absent a family presure, it is easy to get comfortable thinking this attention they get is normal, and will last for a long time.

Hence, they hit their late 20s/early 30s with extremely high expectations, yet their perceived value has diminished with time (at least looks wise).

Many girls realize this, and end up being in "settling mode", which honestly, if you are a guy sucks. She will not love you for what you really are.

To be honest if I had a daughter, my advice would be find a good one between 25-28. That's where your should be wise enough to know what you want, but still have time to change your mind if you feel it is not the right thing.

<comment><USER6> The desire to systematize every aspect of life is why you're still just dating.

<comment><USER7> I'm really not sure why you're using "just dating" pejoratively. The GP might feel no desire to settle down or might enjoy repeating the initial rush through serial monogamy.

Alternatively, he may be open to the prospect of marriage but not be sufficiently dedicated to it to be marrying someone who feels that they're just settling for him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article is long and makes me want to throw something at Lori Gottlieb. Not that I'm advocating violence or would commit it... it's just written in that sort of smug, grating style that makes me browse away after the first 10 paragraphs. All she has done is rebranded the concept of "compromise" (important in all sorts of relationships) as "settling." Nothing new or fascinating, there.

The deconstruction is hilarious. Thanks for posting it. I read all of it.

The civil contract idea is intriguing and creepy at the same time. Part of me thinks, "...or just don't get married in the first place?" That the government is involved with what is, effectively, a religious sacrament, boggles me a little. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

After 11.5 years (and yes, that .5 is important), I'm starting to feel like a veteran on marriage. Like Gottlieb, my perspective on what 'Mr Right' is has changed significantly. To wit, if I had advice to give to young women, it wouldn't be to "settle," but to find someone young, intelligent and not too hard to look at and train him.* By way of example, tptacek is currently in the kitchen making a chicken caesar salad.

* What this really means: grow together. It's difficult, but better than turning 40 and "settling."

<comment><USER9> I think your advice for young women is good. That is what my wife did 20 years ago. Of course as a result she has to put up with me. While I claim this is a good outcome, it is hardly a perfect one...

However as a married atheist I have to point out that marriage is a legal and social construct and not strictly a religious one. I have no trouble pointing to past societies where it was very religious, and ones where it was not religious at all. In short marriage has meaning, and it has meaning for non- religious people as well.

In _fact_ , the divorce rate among atheists is lower than the general public. So one could make a case that marriage matters _more_ to atheists than to the general public!

<comment><USER8> When I said religious, I didn't mean one of any organized religion that begins with a capital letter. I meant it in the sense of social construct. By my definition, atheism is a belief construct and falls into the subcategory under philosophy as a 'religion.' This is a pretty unpopular assertion, so I don't make it often, but it helps for clarification. To wit, legal constructs should be as abstracted from a single belief system as functionally possible, since beliefs vary so widely from one individual to the next. And because any legal system based on ideology is fraught with bugs. The description of a ship with no captain, in Plato's Republic, describes this in a way that is still disturbingly applicable to our modern political and social dynamic.

A more simple way of putting it would be, "if you believe marriage has meaning, then it has meaning." True for anything, right? Now if we could only agree on what is meaningful, and what is not...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _Lori Gottlieb, in The Atlantic, writes "Marry Him!", and describes a problem so pervasive and urgent it's hard to imagine Obama hasn't cleared his desk: what's an "independent," "feminist," "heterosexual" 40-something "woman" with a sperm-donor child to do when she can't find a man to marry her?_

I found this analysis of the author much more interesting than the original article: [http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/dont_settle_for_the_m...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/dont_settle_for_the_man_you_wa.html)

<comment><USER11> This is just an analysis of the author, in no point it addresses the issue that she mentions. The "psych" just calls her ideas "dangerous" in the end, and sticks to an ad-hominem.

I'd like to read someone who can actually find a counter-argument to her thesis and convince me that the best thing women can do is to hold on to their ideal all the way to the end.

<comment><USER12> Ad hominem isn't always a fallacy. Now, I don't know if this analysis of the author is necessarily _accurate_ , but it smacks of plausibility to me because I've seen it before. As people, both men and women, remain single as they get older, they grow more and more accustomed to thinking almost entirely about their own concerns. This kind of self-focus makes it harder and harder to establish and maintain relationships. If you can't get your focus off yourself and off "the relationship" and onto the other person, you're going to have a hard time finding any lasting relationship at all.

<comment><USER13> _Ad hominem isn't always a fallacy._

Indeed: it's only a fallacy if you try to use it as proof of a claim.

As a probability indicator, it's fantastically useful: if person A is right 80% of the time when they make a claim, and person B is right only 20% of the time (assuming all else is equal), then you'd be a damn fool not to incorporate that information into your estimate as to whether something is true: person A is four times as likely to be right, so in a disagreement between the two you should _always_ side with A.

I'm getting a little tired of people shouting "ad hominem" every time the credibility of the author is challenged. The fact that someone doesn't believe in evolution absolutely _should_ make me take their thoughts on global warming less seriously; similarly, if someone has displayed an extremely immature, counterproductive, or selfish approach to relationships, you should probably take any relationship advice they give with a serious grain of salt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> First, "settling" is a highly offensive term. Anyone using that term is living in a fantasy world. I read the author as using it facetiously, though, since that is pretty much the point of the article.

Second, she soundly observes that marriage is basically a business partnership, except she considers it nonprofit (I do not). Assuming you aren't somehow committed to the single life, you should evaluate marriage opportunity based on your appetite for risk and a frank assessment of the opportunity at hand. Just as you shouldn't base decisions on sunk costs, you should ignore illusory opportunity costs. Physical capital decays, if you want a return on it you'll have to take a risk before it loses all of its production capacity. Of course, the older you get without taking a plunge, the easier it becomes to see the illusory nature of the opportunity cost you might have been using.

This all assumes you have a marriage opportunity that you can see having a profitable return (profit measured in happiness here). I would go so far as to say that it's impossible to judge marriage as an institution to be inherently profitable for you personally; it will always depend on the particulars. You might think marriage sounds like the place you want to be, but if you don't find a good partner for yourself in particular, marriage isn't for you.

As long as you don't have kids and both spouses have careers, getting out of the marriage is relatively easy. On the other hand, you only get one life, don't waste it avoiding risks whose most catastrophic downsides are not that bad.

I have assumed you aren't marrying a black widow or having kids with an affinity for patricide/matricide. But worrying about the latter is like worrying about being hit by lightning while not batting an eyelash over driving a car regularly. Avoiding the former is a matter of due diligence.

</comment><comment><USER15> The Cosmo-ification of HN continues apace. Next week, esr's sex tips FAQ.

I know someone will very earnestly explain to me how this is on topic but really, it isn't.

<comment><USER16> I personally don't find these types of articles interesting either, but the HN guidelines say this:

 _On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups._

So if this story has upvotes, I presume some "good hackers" here have found it interesting.

<comment><USER17> You presume wrongly. Communities begin with a "primary demographic"—people who are there for what it says on the tin. Over time, though, these communities start to lure in "secondary demographics" that are interested in both the community topic and other topics, but then those people in turn lure in "tertiary demographics," who aren't interested in the stated purpose of the community at all, only about the hybrid on-/off-topic stuff the secondary demographic posts. The tertiary demographic then posts stories like this one, which the secondary demographic upvotes, and the primary tolerates because they value the participation of the secondary demographic. Before you know it, the tertiary utterly dominates the community, and there is no more topic to be "on topic" about (especially in communities where "on topic" is small and static, but the community allows growth despite this.)

<comment><AUTHOR> To me, "on topic" means an article that is a) not conventional/obvious, b) deep, in the sense that it provides greater analysis than most newspapers/magazines/blog posts, and c) makes me think of some process, idea, trend, method, or ideology in a new way (which ties back into a). All three of those could be further developed as points, but I think they nonetheless help describe what HN is about.

I think "Marry Him!" matches those criteria (since I submitted it): few if any sources covering mating markets and their incentives in as much depth; the stories match some of the data, as developed in books like Tim Harford's _The Logic of Life_ ; I hadn't realized the extent to which sexual politics change as one ages. Consequently, "Marry Him!" seems like it would be interesting to the HN crowd. So does the article on Haskell first impression, with its discussion of monads. To me, both belong.

<comment><USER18> You might find David Friedman's chapter "The Economics of Love and Marriage" interesting [http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Cha...](http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_21/PThy_Chap_21.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Couldn't there be a third way: make demands less strict in society? I remember reading that women in Iceland are among the happiest on the planet, because they are not under so much strain to sustain a relationship forever. It is not frowned upon to break up. Women just move back with families and date again.

Since > 50% of marriages seem to break anyway (if I remember correctly), maybe it would be better to approach things in a more relaxed way to begin with. Maybe then men also wouldn't be so afraid to settle - for a while.

<comment><USER19> Someone in the marriage breakup industry told me that 75% of all _second_ marriages fail.

I think we should have five and ten year civil contracts, with options to renew. What you do religiously is your own business.

<comment><USER20> Well, out of 4 siblings in my family there are two divorces. Except that only one sibling has been divorced : twice.

Divorce statistics are very much a case of lies, damn lies and statistics and are of no use in assessing the likelihood of a successful marriage.

For the record, the 'love' concept of marriage is very much a modern day invention. For most of human history it's been a partly arranged affair to provide a solid foundation with which to bring up children. It's still mostly that (about bringing up children) though the wedding industry likes to convince you it's all about finding the right person and having a romantic time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Here's a rational approach that may be appreciated here :)

Make a concious decision to try and settle down with one of the first 6 girls you date. Here's the rules:

1) don't settle for the first one you date.

2) the next one you date that is better than the first one you dated is the one you settle for.

Why? Do the math. Let's label them 123456.

If you date 1 first, you have 1 in 5 chance of ending up with any of the others (1 in 30 for each)

If you date 2 first, you end up with 1 (1 in 6)

If you date 3 first, you can end up with 1 or 2 (1 in 12 each)

If you date 4 first, you can end up with 1, 2 or 3 (1 in 18 each)

If you date 5 first, you end up with 1, 2, 3 or 4 (1 in 24 each)

If you date 6 first, you end up with 1,2 .. 5 (1 in 30 each).

Add that up, and the odds of you settling for each woman are:

1 - 38.1%, 2 - 24.7%, 3 - 16.4%, 4 - 10.1%, 5 - 6.7%, 6 - 3.3%

So, 79.2% of the time you "settle" for someone above average. And, for the other 20.8%? You can always split up before it's too late :)

<comment><USER22> You should look at <http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol45_no2/node2.html> which derives that the best strategy is to use the first 1/e of your potential dating life to set a baseline, and then choose the best partner that exceeds it.

<comment><USER23> Very interesting. The example for a young man that wants to get married between 20-39 is to date until 27 and then marry the best partner that exceeds it.

In the case of a woman is different. Assuming her prime is between 20-33; her strategy should be to date until 24 and then marry the best man that exceeds it. right? edit: grammar

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Women are people too - they are not just bags of meat that must have babies to be happy.

Don't ever settle, because doing that is always a certain path to endless misery and longing for what you could have had. Yes, life is short, but that's all the more reason to stick to your ideals, and make sure that you choose your ideals carefully (so that you're successful!)

Just think about how settling would ruin your honesty. Imagine what it would be like if you were to see your spouse and think, "I thought I could do better than you, but I gave up trying to find someone decent. You're okay, I guess." Settling requires you to take these thoughts and "set them aside" - evade them - constantly. Doing this does _not_ result in love, or a happy life for anyone (including the children of divorced parents).

</comment><comment><USER25> I hate being a 20-something women. Everybody on the planet, from doctors to HN, feels the need to comment on the apparently glaring biological clock ticking over my head, and make assumptions about A) my happiness and B) my nefarious ulterior dating motives.

I will posit that there exist women who don't base their self-worth and happiness entirely on the approval and acceptance of a man. I will further posit that there are women who aren't married by 30 because they haven't met someone they want to marry yet and are totally OK with that.

Later first marriages are more likely to last anyway.

(And do men really want to be settled for? Like "sure I'll marry you; you're not totally horrible"?)

<comment><USER26> I'm a female entrepreneur aged 32, happily unmarried. Yes, there are women out there 'who aren't married by 30 because they haven't met someone they want to marry yet and are totally OK with that.' - I'm one of them. But this kind of article is the reason why it's sometimes hard - because no-one will ever believe you if you claim that you are not set on getting married and you're not keen on having kids. I've even heard the theory that I founded two startups because I didn't find the right guy to marry and have kids with.

<comment><USER27> >heard the theory that I founded two startups because I didn't find the right guy to marry and have kids with.

I generally flinch in the presence of feminist rhetoric (not saying that you were engaging in rhetoric, demonstrating my leaning), but that is crass and offensive. Why can't people just do what works for them?

Yeeeesh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Western social marriage patterns confuse the hell out of me. It appears to me that the vast majority of men are literally looking to marry a supermodel, beyond that very little beside if she'll laugh at his jokes and be nice appears to matter.

Women on the other hand appear to have all manner of weird neuroses about what constitutes "Mr Right.", so vast is the span of options it is not possible to really outline them all, they even conflict in many cases "Works hard, financially secure, can take the kids to soccer practice and let me focus on my career".

At any rate, I don't understand why from a man's perspective marrying a woman from abroad isn't the obvious option. They tend not to have the lifestyle that contributes to what is fundamentally the definition of "average human appearance" being skewed wildly with weight or the long term effects of cosmetics on skin quality etc etc etc.

For what it's worth for me personally, I think all you humans are crazy and I'm perfectly happy to not be codependent, but whatever blows your hair back.

</comment><comment><USER29> This is an interesting article; thanks for posting it.

However, I enjoyed The Last Psychiatrist's deconstruction of it more: [http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/dont_settle_for_the_m...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/dont_settle_for_the_man_you_wa.html)

</comment><comment><USER30> This article could be mapped readily into "Get a real job: The case for settling for a steady paycheck."

<comment><USER2> Don't you think the lesson could be applied to startups? Do you try to work with the co-founders you have, or do you search incessantly for the perfect one (ie. Bill Gates, or Wozniak)? Do you wait for the perfect, home-run idea, or do you pick one you have and make it work?

I've heard so many people in real jobs moan about how they would do a startup if only they had the right idea. Or that they didn't think they and their potential partners could learn enough about business to make it. They're waiting for the perfect opportunity and circumstances, as if such things fall out of the sky magically, instead of being built and molded by hard work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I found this fascinating link about Lori Gottlieb:

[http://jezebel.com/5467630/email-interview-with-lori- gottlie...](http://jezebel.com/5467630/email-interview-with-lori-gottliebs-ex- tim)

</comment><comment><USER32> In the long run marriage should be a last resort. The vector from mama's vagina to the pine box may not be straight but it IS very short. Heaven is a fantasy so do your best to live peacefully and passionately.

Marriage contains a bit of wonder surrounded by pitfalls aplenty. It is best engaged in by the simplistic and rigid.</comment>


How to Stop Google's Sensorvault from Sharing Your Location with Law Enforcement - <AUTHOR> https://www.howtogeek.com/411387/how-to-stop-googles-sensorvault-from-sharing-your-location-with-law-enforcement/ <comment><USER2> Considering in ancient times, your location was well known.

Everyone knew if you left a village, everyone knew where you went.

There seems to be a short time, where human population has exploded beyond any ability to track everyones location. But then we got a really useful GPS and wifi system.

I don't mind if people know I'm on a freeway, I do mind if laws are bad.

<comment><USER3> So whats your address since you don't seem to mind any stranger knowing?

<comment><USER4> i dont so if youre interested here you go:

6 Victoria Warehouse, wolves, WV1 4LG

anyone i buy something from on ebay gets it, countless websites get it, even random goons ive sold stuff to on gumtree get it so why should i care if its known by anyone else, as far as im aware no one is out to get me so im not exactly worried

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> would it not appear more suspicious to not be on it than to be on it? if you have to go t lengths that require a guide to sto it then it means you have to go to special effort and if youre doing that its likely because you ave something to hide

it reminds me of the guys you see dressed in matching 3 stripe track suits with little shoulder bags and a nokia dumbphone, they think theyre somehow avoiding some sort of tracking by using that crappy old nokia when in fact theyve only managed to make it obvious to everyone around the that theyre dealing drugs</comment>


Sacrificing everything for my dog. How I became a programmer - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/this-happened-to-me/612aeda3d770 <comment><USER2> I like the story, but I feel it's important to mention that the authors stated opinion on Karma is _terrifying_.

Karma is essentially the worst sort of belief, in that superficially it seems to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. This appeals to a lot of people because of its clear "carrot/stick" mentality and overall simplicity. This is the "Just-World" hypothesis.

In reality, this kind of thinking means that if you believe in Karma, you can ignore less-fortunates because clearly they screwed up their lives on their own. Conversely, you can get away with being a jerk to people, because they probably deserved it anyway. It is a self-reinforcing bias of the worst sort.

<comment><USER3> This is a very superficial interpretation of the idea of karma. What you're describing is just someone rationalizing being a judgmental asshole.

Karma is about "paying it forward", not in an attempt to gain the favor of the universe, but because it is the morally correct thing to do.

If you believe in karma, you believe that the machinations of the universe will reward and punish justly, but you don't participate in the process directly. Individuals don't get to meter out "karmic retribution" to people they perceive to be unworthy.

<comment><USER4> While I don't think that the author of the piece meant it this way:

If I believe in Karma, arguably I believe that the best thing I can do is to fulfil my station in life as I aspire to break the cycle of rebirth. It's definitely worth remembering that Karma existed in a society that did have, and still does in some ways, a very strong caste system where the good of the society was often seen as a consequence of everyone doing their assigned role. Notably, in the Bhagavad Gita, one of the arguments that Krishna uses to convince Arjuna that he should fight against his own family is because it will fulfil his verdic duties - in this instance his station in life as a warrior.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Remember kids, if you work hard, sacrifice, and have parents with a spare house in Tahoe they can lend you rent-free indefinitely, you too can make it as a programmer.

<comment><USER6> I can't understand the general hostility toward getting (financial) help from your parents or living with them until you are financially independent, even after 18/25/30.

I know I am biased as an italian (and pretty much adhere to the true stereotype) but I can't find anything wrong from getting help from the people that brought you in this world and which probably love you more than anyone else on the planet (and therefore have more reasons to do so). There's no shame in getting helped.

<comment><USER7> > I can't understand the general hostility toward getting (financial) help > from your parents or living with them until you are financially independent, > even after 18/25/30.

Personally, I never had that support structure and had to figure out my shit the hard way; that doesn't mean I was never helped by people, it simply means that I had to work harder to get help. This means that I find it mildly annoying when those hoops are skipped easily by people who can run to mommy and daddy when things go bad.

> I know I am biased as an italian

There is a cultural element to it. I am of Indian origin; those people are big on the family support structure thing. I think it gets way too codependent. On the other hand, America has both kinds: There are enough people who run to daddy to handle their credit card bills. There also is this Randian image of a hero who arises magically from the dust and conquers everything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The bit about having to overcome feelings of guilt about disappointing your advisor in order to live the right life for you really resonated with me. Taking the long-term view to make the right short-term life choices is something that many of my unhappy colleagues still toiling on their doctorates would benefit from. We PhD dropouts have decades of experience meeting and exceeding the expectations of others by the time we reach graduate school, so it feels like a radical step to finally place our own needs and desires above the need for validation from others in our lives.

<comment><USER9> Second. I'd also like to point out that I am a cat person and also feel bad about not being able to spend more time with my cats while I'm in the lab all day!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > If you've ever owned a dog, you know just how intelligent they actually are > (especially larger breeds)

yes, some larger breeds rate higher on obedience scale, and we, humans, equate that to the intelligence in animals. There is another bias also is that large breeds are more frequently working breeds, thus a lot of specialized effort is invested into training them, and thus more of the obedience results achieved.

<comment><USER11> Couldn't obedience be another form of intelligence?

<comment><USER12> Agree, to do everything right they have to understand when and how to do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Quite a bit of discussion around the meaning of Karma in here.

As an Indian, I'd like to chip in with the actual meaning of "Karma" \- the closest synonym in English is "fulfilling your purpose".

The Indian culture is heavy with assumptions that everyone has some purpose in life. The concept of karma urges you to act upon your purpose in life - intended or perceived. It never promises any rewards or punishments by itself. That is primarily taken care of by the rest of the philosophy in these books - unsurprisingly similar to all the other religions of the world.

By itself, karma has no positive or negative association. In fact, one of the holy texts dissociates your "karma" with the fruits reaped subsequent to it. "Continue fulfilling your purpose in life without expecting any rewards for your actions whatsoever." In other words:

Happiness = Reality - Expectations.

The lower the expectations and 'better' the reality, the greater your happiness. :)

</comment><comment><USER14> I like this guy. Except for when he acted like cat owners couldn't make sacrifices too. I once had to cut a trip short because my cat missed me so much that he made himself sick.

<comment><AUTHOR> lol. Sorry for ripping on cat people at the end. For the sake of my dog, I felt like I had to get at least one jab in there.

<comment><USER15> I found it a happy little jab at the end of a serious, introspective article. Thank you for the neat read! I, personally am looking to get a dog and cat(s) soon, and I, too, realize the massive time commitment these animals require to make it worth it. I'm shooting for a stronger at-home presence before I make the leap.

<comment><USER16> My roommates told me that when I went home to visit family for vacation, my cat apparently sat at the door every day as if she was waiting for me to come back. What am I supposed to say when I hear that? She demonstrates her affection in other ways too. Dang, you get attached so easily. Definitely be prepared to be committed before you get a pet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I live in a village of 40 people in the mountains a large part of the year for my dogs. Programming from home. Living in a city and working in an office I thought was horrible for animals so we changed our lives 6 years ago radically to not go to 'the office' (office at home now) and live on a large (30000 m^2) plot of land where dogs can be outside without us worrying about cars.

I don't have the karma thing; I just moved because I thought dogs should be able to run around all day instead of sit in a small apartment (the apartment costing actually 4x as much as the villa + large plot of land making it really insane to me now that people actually choose and like living on 80m^2 vs 200m^2+30000m^2 for 4x as much money, but he, I loved it in the city; I'm not sure if that feeling grew or was always there). We would never move back to our previous life; there is no stress anymore and money is simply worth a lot more in the countryside.

</comment><comment><USER18> The author's opinions on incurring credit card debt strikes me as naive with a hint of survivorship bias.

 _> As long as you use the money properly, and investing in yourself is the best possible way to use money, credit cards can give you a new life._

If by using the money properly he meant investing in his business, then, what would have happened if his business instead failed (as most do)?

Incurring high-interest debt like that isn't really advisable unless you have a solid plan B to deal with it in case things go awry (which they probably will).

<comment><USER19> That's the wonderful and horrible thing about the US. There are a myriad of high risk high reward options like credit cards and student debt. For some people they pay off, for others they end up drowning in debt. There are some wonderful success stories and some terrifying stories of lives reduced to abject poverty.

<comment><USER20> I think it is mostly wonderful. In the part of the third world my parents are from unless your family is independently wealthy then you simply won't be able to afford to go to college and thus are destined to (at best) have some very low-paying menial labor job.

Contrast this with the US, you can get federally-backed, low-interest loans, go to school majoring in engineering and move from poverty to middle class in one generation.

Pretty sweet deal, imo.

<comment><USER19> Well it's a huge difference with Europe. Specifically in Austria where I'm living everyone gets an education for free, there's free health care, even menial jobs are well paid. Everyone lives a pretty solid middle class life but there are much fewer people struggling to change the world. Fewer success stories but everyone is taken care of. It's an interesting situation, hell there's not even credit card debt since if your credit isn't paid by the end of the month it's locked until you pay your balance down to zero.

<comment><USER21> Another thing to factor in: for whatever reasons, you aren't reproducing. Per Wikipedia, your fertility rate is 1.42 to 1.44 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_de...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate)), which is perilously close to the "lowest low" of 1.3 from which societies don't recover from, and certainly isn't even close to the 2.1 needed for steady state replacement.

I.e. absent serious change, your society is doomed, you'll die out in due course; many say the example your and other counties like you provide are object lessons in what not to do.

<comment><USER19> That's a strawman unless you can produce data that relates the reproduction rate to the standard of living. If you can do that then apparently what you're saying is that a country needs to enforce low standards (or at least wildly differing) standards of living in order to ensure survival. I.e. absent major changes your argument has been refuted; Many say the example your argument and other's like it provide are object lessons in what not to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Great story. However, this clearly was _not_ a sacrifice.

It would be a sacrifice if he had made himself miserable for the sake of the dog.

We have a culture that glorifies sacrifice, and we need to stop doing that. Sacrifice is a barbaric, religious notion. Nobody truly gains by others' sacrifices.

<comment><USER7> You are lucky the west is a guilt based culture; this glorification of sacrifice goes even further in shame based cultures.

<comment><USER22> I can't imagine any form of sacrifice-worship more severe than Christianity, which has generally ruled the west for 1700 years.

That said, many Westerners are much better than the central theme of their religion. I can't really speak for eastern cultures. You may be right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Really sweet story. As a two-cat household (no doggies allowed in apartment unfortunately) I understand the desire to be home with them. I always tell people being with my kitties all day is a major plus for being a programmer. And didn't mind the ending line, cat people have their dog people jokes too so it's fun for all of us.

</comment><comment><USER24> I've got tremendous respect for this man - honestly identifying what's important and then changing direction so fundamentally is very hard. It takes a lot of courage to do all of that, we need more loving people for sure.

</comment><comment><USER25> I honestly don't know where I'd be without my dog. They really are amazing animals. It's been a rough few years and just knowing that every time I get up from the computer that he's ready to make me smile and go wherever I go, whenever I go... it's a perfect reminder of why I work as hard as I do.

Even though I do walk him multiple times each day, I feel bad for sitting at this machine working 70+ hours a week trying to build a business. It's taking longer than expected and it's gotten to where I can't tell if he's just getting old or possibly depressed from lack of stimulation, so I tell him (probably more so myself ;) that we're going to move on soon and have all kinds of fun. That's the main thing that keeps me going. I just hope that by the time I do get back on my feet, there's still time to give him the life he deserves.

<comment><USER26> Stop projecting your feelings on your dog. Your dog does not guilt you into anything, your dog doesn't judge you, you are judging yourself.

<comment><USER25> I know. I thought I made that clear with the "probably more so myself" bit. But me feeling bad for the dog who has a much shorter lifespan than I do and who seems to already be losing his sight and hearing is not projecting. My sight and hearing is perfectly fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> _There are probably a lot of people out there who balk at the idea of personal sacrifice for a dog. It's easy to spot these people, however. They are cat people._

I spent $1000 last month so one of my cats could get an abcessed tooth removed on Memorial day, out of about $2500 that I took in. You're not special.

<comment><USER24> That closing remark was obviously tongue-in-cheek! :)

<comment><USER13> As a cat-person, I hope the tongue-in-cheek was between the two jaws. :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> So dogs don't deserve to be locked up all day inside, but kids, and people, do?

Humans are happy outdoors. Children need to be outside exploring, playing, figuring out the earth and nature, not sitting inside on iPads all day. Just because there are "good jobs" in tech doesn't mean it's OK to withdraw your child from nature in order to allow more time tinkering with computers.

Let kids get close with nature. Let them connect with animals and the earth. It will lead to calmer, more empathetic adults with less anxiety and more confidence and compassion.

<comment><USER29> The writer's comments were not primarily about a dog being locked _inside_, there were more about the dog being left _alone_. It's illegal to lock a kid inside alone all day (or at all), but that's how many dogs are left, even though dogs are pack animals that decline without interaction.

Yes, there is the additional element of nature (i.e., Tahoe) in the narrative. And nature certainly enriches both our lives and a dog's life. But having interaction with others is a more basic and even more important requirement in our lives. Nature, important as it is, is more like the frosting on top.

<comment><USER30> Kids might not be locked alone but they are definitely left all alone with their iPads in practically all families I have seen. The trend is especially true in the western world where the parents are too 'busy' and send their kids off to preschool way too early since they can't be bothered with parenting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> As someone who lived in South Lake many years ago, I do get the Tallac reference. In the spring of 90 I hiked that mountain (started at 2am and reached the top at 9am)and snowboarded down the "cross". That day is one if my best memories. Thank you for the reminder=)

[http://www.summitpost.org/mount- tallac/150430](http://www.summitpost.org/mount-tallac/150430)

</comment><comment><USER32> I really wish this trend of pressing left and right arrow keys to change articles/blog-posts would hurry up and die. Maybe I'm just stupidly clumsy, but so many times I'll try and scroll down on one of these pages and get thrown to some random story that doesn't interest me because I hit the wrong arrow key.

</comment><comment><USER33> Perhaps the author knew he was on the wrong path subconsciously, but convinced himself it was okay if he was making the change for his dog? To turn his own words around, why would someone who lives a life of 75-80 years decide the course of their life-time for one that will only be around for 10?

P.S. I love my dog too but ...

<comment><USER12> I don't know I don't have problems making changes in my life for someone who matters to me. I don't look at life as a single event. Better split it into 5 - 10 year periods, a lot of things change in that time.

Also if you like having dogs you'll have another one with similar needs in 10-15 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> It seems like he might have solved his problem twice. I have a friend who's a serious dog person, and having a significant other who gets home several hours before he does has helped his dog to be happy. Perhaps Lisa also has an easier schedule than dsowers would have if he continued being a chemist.

</comment><comment><USER35> Just imagine if people were that dedicated to _each other_.

I've often noticed that we treasure the unconditional love and dedication that dogs have for their owners, yet the same behavior seen among people would be considered weak, co-dependent, etc. Why is there such a disconnect here?

</comment><comment><USER36> Ping-pong tables, ha!!

Part of the reason I won't take a higher paying job in an office environment is the satisfaction I get working from home and having my dog(s) by my side. Being able to step out of the house for fresh air and take them on a walk is worth it's weight in gold.

<comment><USER37> Or you could get a job where you can bring your dog to the office. That's what I do - he likes going to work more than I do, since he gets to see all of his friends at the office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Dogs focus their energies on pleasure and curiosity. Being around them can really change your point of view on things. I'm very glad to be able to work from home and spend that extra time with my 13 year old dog.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm in the same situation, getting sick of spending too much time away from home, but I am already a programmer who's made to commute 2.5hrs a day for a job I can do from home :(

</comment><comment><USER40> A dog is a living creature, just like a child is. Sounds good enough to attempt to make it happy. I wouldn't worry about what others think. ;-)

(note: I don't have a dog.)

<comment><USER41> > A dog is a living creature, just like a child is.

Ok, mosquitoes are too.

I'm really worried for those people equating their prefered pets with human beings.

I remember those technokids playing the beggars in front of a somethingmarket in France, they had four enormous dogs and wanted money supposedly for their pets' food.

Bullshit. If you like dogs, you do not chain them allday long to some grocery entrance, and then bring them back in some small stinky appartment. You either live with them in the countryside and go hunting rabbits with them in the morning, or you just don't breed them.

<comment><USER40> That's quite a stretch you made there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Clearly the author loved his dog more than his research advisor who supported the author through finance and other things.Glad for him though that it worked out.

</comment><comment><USER43> Best ending ever.

</comment><comment><USER44> good story bro... hope the dog's getting a cut of the profits. kidding aside, well done!

</comment><comment><USER45> What a great story!</comment>


Announcing SQL Server on Linux - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2016/03/07/announcing-sql-server-on-linux/ <comment><USER2> I for one am excited to hear about this move and was wondering if it would ever happen. This will help keep SQL Server alive and growing (I think) and who knows, maybe bits and pieces will even become open source some day (that's optimistic perhaps).

I am an equal opportunity consumer of database technology - something we all should be (e.g. use the right tool for the job when appropriate). I have used MANY different databases, open source and commercial, and there are better ones and worse ones across the spectrum. I think it is naive to criticize this move in any way - it is giving more choice so should be supported.

That said, SQL Server has a low barrier to entry, a very good implementation of the SQL language, an advanced optimizer, strong storage engine, management tools and a lot of nice BI features. Although you don't hear about it much, SQL Server also has Parallel Data Warehouse (PDW) which is their MPP database - ironically which used to be built using Ingres and Java of all things.

In my experience, SQL Server <-> PostgreSQL is the closest commercial to open source comparison (core database engine-wise) I can think of. This makes sense when you consider - both of them started as Ingres! Of course, Postgres and SQL Server have totally different user experiences (database management, tooling, etc.) and many different features.

<comment><USER3> Would you yourself actually choose SQL Server on Linux for a project?

I'm a big fan of SQL Server but the main thing that hurts it is the cost. Licensing our two servers today would cost a quarter of a million dollars. The OS cost is a rounding error. If I'm paying that much money for SQL Server I don't think I'd choose the Linux version for at least another 5 years from now. It needs to prove itself and there's almost no benefit to offset the risk.

<comment><USER4> I would never use MS SQL Server unless it is open source. Otherwise you get into vendor lock-in. Microsoft is cunning - they want to tie Linux-based businesses to their (expensive) products for good. But fortunately there is a viable open source alternative - PostgreSQL. [http://www.pg-versus- ms.com](http://www.pg-versus-ms.com)

<comment><USER5> Out of curiosity, how does OSS prevent vendor lock-in? Are you talking more in terms of support?

<comment><USER6> Anyone can support the OSS product to utmost level by studying the source code (and possibly fixing/modifying it).

> Are you talking more in terms of support?

Support is not tied to the product's license (which is common for proprietary software).

<comment><USER7> The sad truth is that "anyone can" is frequently still "nobody did, so you're on your own". This well applies to even the most popular pieces of FLOSS.

That's still significantly better than "noone but a single vendor can and you're at their mercy", but just being FLOSS doesn't mean it can't suffer from product lock-in, just that with the hurdle being complexity and not copyright.

<comment><USER8> There's always friction, yes, but rarely a lock or you'd simply go into the code and remove it.

Natural complexity, when the domain is simply complex to model, can't be gotten rid of regardless of the product.

<comment><USER7> Ah, the lock is not something that check the license and tells "oh no you're not allowed". It's a combination of not having something, and complexity to add it. Sometimes, that's because you need something tricky. Sometimes, that's because the project lacks any documentation, is written in a pretty low-level (verbose) language that obscures the high-level picture, and it's hard to figure out how it works. Sometimes, that's because FLOSS != KISS, and there is a lot of FLOSS software that has its own unique proprietary protocols and data formats, and does things in a manner that's completely incompatible and non- interoperable with any other system. I have no clue about MySQL or PostgreSQL internals (actually, I heard a word they're good in this regard), but is the case for various FLOSS projects - I've dug into some and cursed their developers.

If you overcame that and made a patch, but it's not accepted by the upstream - there are maintenance costs. How long would you be able to maintain your own fork of a large software project, keeping up with the upstream? I've tried with a few small ones (say, at a small ISP company, I just needed some custom pppd patches for in-house billing logic), and found it to be not a pleasant experience. I believe it's not just because I'm a lazy ass - I saw tons of forks on GitHub that were slowly rotting away, maintained for some time but eventually forsaken by their authors and far behind their upstreams.

<comment><USER8> That's what a _lock_ is - something intentional. Everything else is natural complexity. Nobody made their code complex because they felt like it.

> If you overcame that and made a patch, but it's not accepted by the upstream

As for how well the FLOSS projects are managed, how's your luck at debugging let alone getting a patch accepted in MS-SQL, for instance?

> I saw tons of forks on GitHub that were slowly rotting away

I saw people with food, who weren't eating it because they were full, and I decided that food was stupid. Right?

> How long would you be able to maintain your own fork of a large software > project, keeping up with the upstream?

Far longer than a binary patch... You know, to block a certain cipher suite or something in a closed-source product.

<comment><USER7> > how's your luck at debugging let alone getting a patch accepted in MS-SQL, > for instance?

Duh, none or nearly none, of course.

I'm not saying that proprietary binary blobs are better. There are exceptions, but generally they're significantly worse in this regard.

I'm only saying that just because software is FLOSS doesn't mean one can successfully hack on it and adapt it to their needs, or easily migrate to other FLOSS solutions. Sometimes, they'll be stuck for a while - I think that's also can be considered as a lock-in.

> Nobody made their code complex because they felt like it.

Maybe. But there's a term "over-engineering" too. It's not that someone decides to make things unnecessarily complex, but sometimes they really do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I work on a software product that supports MySQL, PgSQL and SqlServer (if they run it on Windows, since we only support the official Windows PHP drivers).

SqlServer has always been the best performing and least troublesome database in terms of weird edge cases, backup, restoration, and (especially!) performing expensive SELECTS on databases that have grown into the 100's of Gigabytes in size.

Based on my experience, for all the (often deserved) hate on M$, SqlServer is really a shining star.

That being said, I am a little scared to support SqlServer on Linux, as I imagine it will have to be different in quite some potentially fundamental ways to work on Linux - I'd love to hear if anyone has opinions on that aspect.

<comment><USER10> Keep in mind that SQL Server basically runs on top of it's own conception of an operation system even when installed on Windows. It's called SQLOS and the work done on that was probably what largely enabled this to happen because there was already an existing layer of abstraction in place for development to use.

That said, I think that this will probably come with a large amount of caveats, for instance, I wouldn't be surprised if when it launches it's just the core SQL engine and not the extra pieces (SSIS,SSAS,SSRS,MDS, et cetera).

<comment><USER11> > Keep in mind that SQL Server basically runs on top of it's own conception of > an operation system even when installed on Windows.

What is the reason for this?

<comment><USER12> An operating system is usually optimized to perform well for a large variety of workloads. Databases have a very specific workload and there are some possible (performance) optimizations if you, for example, bypass the operating system file caching and prefetching facilities and roll your own. Or if you control the scheduling of your operations. Take this with a grain of salt, it has been some time since I read about SQL Server internals, but this is what I remember.

<comment><USER13> >bypass the operating system file caching

Using raw partitions instead of file system files for database storage was common practice with Oracle and other DBs at one time. Not checked lately.

<comment><USER14> db2 used to support/recommend raw block devices (this was ~8 years ago). I believe nowadays they are recommending using regular filesystems again.

<comment><USER13> Good to know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> From [http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-is-porting-sql- server...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-is-porting-sql-server-to- linux/) -

"The spokesperson also acknowledged that Microsoft won't be bringing all of the same capabilities in SQL Server 2016 to Linux; it will be just the "core relational database capabilities."

As somewhat expected this will be a limited release catering mostly to cloud customers (Azure in particular) - who knows down the road they will port all features to Linux including the UI management tools but I would be surprised if they don't keep the niche features Windows-only.

Welcome announcement anyway - having a supported mainstream DB other than Oracle on Linux is a good thing.

<comment><USER16> > I would be surprised if they don't keep the niche features Windows-only.

For some definition of niche, which in this case may very well include "enterprise class features" such as replication...

This is a way for MS to increase exposure and draw people into their ecosystem (at least for a part of their infrastructure) in an increasingly OS agnostic world. I don't think it makes sense for them to cannibalize their current revenue sources to do so, and a part of that is requiring expensive Windows Server licenses for high-end MSSQL features.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, replication, encryption, memory optimized tables, search etc. come to mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would never use SQL server willingly but I really like the direction Microsoft is taking lately. They are a software company and restricting their software to PCs running Windows only doesn't make sense.

<comment><USER18> ms sql is better than mysql. downvote me all you want, but you can't possibly disagree if you've tried both like I have. transaction isolation anyone?

don't have much experience with postgres, but my money is still on mssql

<comment><USER19> PostgreSQL is pretty amazing. MySQL isn't even in the same league as PostgreSQL. I'm sure MSSQL is nice, but my money is on PostgreSQL being even nicer.

[http://www.pg-versus-ms.com/](http://www.pg-versus-ms.com/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2mhpwp/postgre...](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2mhpwp/postgresql_vs_ms_sql_server_a_comparison_of_two/)

MySQL is hardly a relational database, it's not quite the benchmark you're looking for.

<comment><USER20> _I 'm sure MSSQL is nice, but my money is on PostgreSQL being even nicer._

Having used both, I'd take that bet. MSSQL is in my opinion the best DB out there in terms of ease of use, documentation, integration, and tools. PostgreSQL is a distant second, and SQLite is probably a distant 3rd (though it's really not in the same category).

<comment><USER21> Does MS-SQL have anything like PostGres' Bidirectional replication?

Also, Postgres is missing multiple result sets, which Sql Server seems to have, right?

<comment><USER22> I'm not as familiar with later versions of MS-SQL, but it's replication story is well in the box... Postgres is a bolted on, hard to setup/maintain hodge podge... I really hope the out of the box, via a gui admin and all story for replication on postgres gets to where MS-SQL was in the box in 2005.

NOTE: this is not a bash or nag on postgres, I really like it's JSON integration, and plv8 is awesome. That said, even simple replication stories in pgsql have me pulling my hair out, mainly because I don't _WANT_ to know every intricate detail about my dbms, I just want to build applications on top of it, and ms-sql is pretty nice in that regard.

<comment><USER20> Admittedly I've never used the replication in Postgres but that surprises me. I don't think I had the opportunity to use replication in MSSQL 2005 but it was pretty awful 2003 and pretty terrific in 2008 so I guess it was fixed somewhere in between.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's taken a ton of years, but here we are:

"If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won." -Linus Torvalds

<comment><USER24> Everyone already knew linux for servers is winning.

<comment><USER25> Outside of Silicon Valley, it's not so cut and dry.

<comment><USER26> Could you take a more nuanced and defined stance? What sectors, markets, or users are you referring to?

<comment> UK-AL Virtually any major corporation will have major installations of AD, File Servers, Print Servers, etc using MS infrastructure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> For years I told my boss: "I'd love to use SQL Server like you suggested, but it doesn't run on Linux".

Now I'm finished.

</comment><comment><USER28> Can someone tell me why I would want to use SQL Server when there are so many robust and free RDBMS available on Linux?

<comment><USER29> Reverse your thinking. Think of a business that's dependent on MSSQL -- now they can run in on Linux, and also, they won't need to think about DB server migration. Many businesses are gravitating towards Linux on the server for many reasons, but they don't necessarily want to change their DB technology.

In other words: MS isn't just trying to acquire new users, it tries to keep existing ones.

<comment><USER30> This 10x. We're a very large consumer of MS licenses, and even so, we're pushing out to Linux where we can. And of all the MS technologies we use, the one we'd never give up is MSSQL.

I'm really happy to see this.

<comment><USER31> I couldn't agree more here. SQL Server is the only server product from MS I won't move off. I'm running an MS server only to run SQL Server. I would love to use a linux instance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm genuinely worried now. I'll have to thumb through the Book of Revelation again, but I'm pretty sure MSSQL on Linux and Donald Trump possibly becoming the next President are two of the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

<comment><USER33> Until Microsoft changes its licensing model so that it's not ridiculously expensive, I'll still keep preferring free software over their stuff. But that's something they'll _never_ do.

<comment><USER34> It's all about finding the right tool for the job. For most, this audience especially, open source relational databases are the way to go. For a lot of big business and government jobs, Oracle and Microsoft are the way to go and having your preferred ops environment makes a big difference. At my first job we had to maintain an Oracle DB connection to pull data directly from the City of Los Angeles. At the end of the day we were out of business without that so we didn't really debate the merits of using it. That job happened to be a Windows shop anyway (most of the company were CAD artists using Architecture software) so it didn't phase the IT ops team.

On the other hand, at my current job I've been in charge of some search tech that's Windows only and being the lone Windows user has been a bit painful. We liked the results it gave us but recently developed our own algorithms on top of ElasticSearch so we didn't have to deal with Windows anymore. The Dev work to switch was more than the cost saved on the license for the old software, so this wasn't a case of open source saving is money on the solution implementation. We really just didn't want to focus on Windows Dev ops. I think this is the concern the SQL Server team had and why they're supporting Linux, especially in Microsoft's increasingly Azure focused world.

<comment><USER35> Paying for a tool that does the job is one thing. But SQL Server's licensing scheme is so fucked up that I see companies building custom servers for the sole purpose of gaming it (extremely low core count and high clock rates). That shouldn't be the goal of software licensing

<comment><USER34> I don't think that's really gaming the license. If a fast two core system fits your needs then you only need the two core license. MS is happy to sell those to you all day long. If you have a serious load and SQL Server is key to your business you're likely to have better things to do than try to micromanage your server architecture to save a few dollars. If you're in a position where SQL Server, Oracle, or any other specialized commercial DB is a major cost and you're not seeing a positive ROI, messing with core counts v.s. clock speed is probably a poorer use of time than switching to Postgres or MySQL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm very interested to hear some of the details about how the storage engine was ported to Linux. One of the advantages of SQL Server was how well it exploited the Windows overlapped I/O model for disk access. When running large selects, backups, or restores, SQL Server always uses the full bandwidth of my disk subsystem. When I built a prototype of my application on PostgreSQL (which I would much rather run for its free licenses and more mature indexing), I had to tweak all kinds of things to get it to use the full bandwidth of my disk system and I was not always successful.

<comment><USER37> The space of applications for which storage bandwidth is a limit on performance but where the overall scale is appropriate for a SQL RDBMS is shrinking every year. Is this even a meaningful niche?

Basically, [http://yourdatafitsinram.com/](http://yourdatafitsinram.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> For anyone unaware, SQL Server is a 'fork' of Sybase after an agreement between Sybase and Microsoft ended in 1993. At that point, "Sybase SQL Server version 4.2 and Microsoft SQL Server are identical."

Sybase runs happily on Unix, Linux or Windows.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybase)

<comment><USER39> Sybase has not kept their end up to what Microsoft has been pushing in SQL Server. Transact-SQL is nicer on SQL Server and the last time I used Sybase the query planner was problematic to the point of needed to force loads of indexes.

<comment><USER40> I second that, we had to run a medium sized application on FusionIO cards because Sybase was just terrible at query optimization

<comment><USER39> We did a lot of monitoring and index forcing. We queried the system tables and go the current query plan for the statements running. We were already on one of the biggest boxes HP built (Superdome) with some fun fast storage for the db.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I've used a lot of databases over the past 25 years. From DBase flat files to the Borland Database Engine to MSSQL (pre and post 2K), Interbase / Firebird, DB2, PostgreSQL, MySql/MariaDb, Sqlite and more. I haven't used MSSQL in a few years and had to dive back into it for an integration project. Oh my, I forgot how user unfriendly it is.

I can't call a stored procedure from a select query? Ok, write a user-defined wrapper function. Oh wait, I can't call a stored procedure from there either. Now I know why the consultants use a VBA script in Excel to load data... it's actually the easiest way, ridiculously convoluted as it is, if your logic is implemented as stored procedures.

I remember the first time I wrote a stored procedure in PostgreSQL. It was the point at which I decided I would never willingly choose MSSQL for a project again. If you write a lot of stored procedures / TSQL in MS SQL Server, do yourself a favor and check out how it is done in PostgreSQL. It's an order of magnitude simpler and saner.

</comment><comment><USER42> Time to invite that girl again for a date (that one that said that hell would freeze before she would accept my invitation).

</comment><comment><USER43> Errr, how exactly does this work? What's the underlying technology that makes it possible?

<comment><USER44> I'd like to know more about this too. Data storage and retrieval is such an important and integral part of an RDBMS and the switch to Linux suggests that they've had to tear up a lot of their low-level logic. How well they've done optimizing storage for EXT3/EXT4 seems to be pretty important. It would be interesting to see what's changed and how they managed this.

<comment><USER45> If past Microsoft is any reference, most of the software is cross platform. It is designed from the start to be cross platform. It's just that they never bothered to actually port it to anything other than Windows.

Of course, bits and pieces might be tied to a platform and the dependency chain might drag other parts down, but overall Windows, Office, etc. generally have some sort of abstraction at the lower level that could theoretically allow porting to any platform.

<comment><USER44> That's my concern though. When you look at other enterprise-sized RDBMS you find tight integration at the "machine" level. Oracle's storage, for instance, uses "Blocks" which are sized based on the block size of the disk they are writing to. This tight integration at such a low level is part of what makes these RDBMS's fast. I would imagine that instead of running on an abstract layer that can be commonly built across many OS's that an RDBMS like Sql Server would be more tightly integrated with the machine they are running on in order to maximize performance and disk space. If so, I would really love to dig through what that means for SQL server.

<comment><USER46> Might that not imply that the implementation is relatively little tied to a particular OS? Taking your example, as long as there's a way to get the block size for a disk, there's not much more OS-specific code to deal with -- in particular, adapting your code to the file system doesn't need to be done since the DB will essentially create its own anyway. Similarly, only a few threading primitives need to be used -- the DB isn't going to tie itself heavily to the vagaries of the async IO implementation, which does tend to differ heavily and pervasively between platforms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> The three best Microsoft products are their natural keyboard, the mice and SQL Server. Now all of them work with my OS.

<comment><USER48> > The three best Microsoft products are their natural keyboard...

The Natural Keyboards [0] have been getting less and less durable as the years go by. My first one lasted for ~five years. My second, two or three. My third is less than a year old and _already_ suffering from intermittent failure to register keypresses, as well as _surprisingly_ rapid breakdown of the faux leather material that covers the bottom portion of the keyboard. (The faux leather breakdown is a _first_ for me... all the other keyboards suffered mechanical failure long before I saw _any_ sort of wear on the bottom portion material.)

[0] Specifically, the MSFT Natural Ergonomic Keyboard X000 models that have the stupid, useless zoom slider.

<comment><USER47> I said they are the best, not that they are still very good ;-)

But I agree with you. My next one will be a kinesis.

<comment><USER48> > ...they are the best, not that they are still very good...

And I agree with you on both counts. :D

Are you thinking about one of the models with the bowl curves for the keys? If you are, have you typed on one? If you did, what did you think of it?

<comment><USER47> I did, and it's wonderful.

It's tough to adjust back to a laptop keyboard, however. And switching regularly may create new tissue in your cerebellum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I never thought I'd see this happen, but it turns out to be quite a pleasant surprise. I know it's already possible to run ASP.Net on Linux via Apache, so this is the next logical step.

I'm quite impressed by the possibility of running SQL Server on Linux; as a T-SQL developer immediately out of university, I have come to appreciate its speed and efficiency. It's not perfect and it does have its annoying quirks, but in general it's quite a sturdy RDBMS. MySQL has demonstrated some much more WTF-y quirks (try inserting a varchar into an int column!) and there are places I prefer T-SQL syntax (e.g. temp tables). Management tools don't really factor into it, you can get third-party tools that support intellisense etc. on different RDBMSs. In short, I would have few reservations about using SQL Server for my own projects (since I run exclusively Linux at home).

Licensing is another story though; I dread to think how much it'll cost, but this is a pretty amazing step in the right direction, adding to a recent history of such steps, for Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER50> The first thing that comes to mind with this announcement is about SQLServer drivers for non-Windows platforms. Years ago, it was all but impossible to talk to "DataCenter" SQLServer from anything but Windows. Apparently, the connection URI was a configuration endpoint and the driver was responsible for switching between active masters. This meant that a simple ODBC driver wouldn't work as there was no real endpoint to connect to. A real Linux driver would be great; an open source one would be outstanding!

NOTE: This type of thing is what made me hate Microsoft for so long, and even today I find it difficult to recommend them as a solution provider for anything, on any platform. So, while I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'll continue working to move everything I can, including databases, to another platform.

</comment><comment><USER51> Seems quite insular to call it just "SQL Server". We already have Postgres SQL Server, MySql SQL Server, etc. They should call it "Microsoft SQL Server".

<comment><USER52> They do but they also seem to own the trademark to "SQL Server":

[https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/legal/intellectualproperty/t...](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/legal/intellectualproperty/trademarks/en- us.aspx#70cf4cc4-bd8e-48a5-90e0-b4e0fe464527)

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I have a lot of negative feelings about Microsoft because of the historical baggage but they have some good products and technologies. I am also fairly negative on Oracle but when they released their database on Linux it was important for me at the time as it gave a boost to Linux server work (now with added DBA).

There is a lot of software that targets a limited subset of databases due to SQL incompatibilities/features and sometimes that is a subset of one. Getting some of those backends on Linux would be nice for people who have concentrated on unix/linux skills to the detriment of their Windows knowledge.

This eats Windows OS sales to some extent but I am sure they can make it up with database licenses and market share if they take the product seriously.

</comment><comment><USER54> I've always had this question and this looks like my chance to ask it. If you are developing new software today why on earth would you use SQL server? Is the price tag justified over the many free and open source alternatives?

</comment><comment><USER55> This would never happen if Steve Ballmer was still alive.

<comment><USER56> He is not dead:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer)

<comment><USER55> Was joking :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> This is huge and I wonder if this now means that they'll also bring other products to Linux such as Microsoft Power BI. It would definitely make sense in light of this announcement.

</comment><comment><USER5> Every time there's an announcement like this, I like to remember back to the campaign of FUD that MS peddled against Linux. I think Ballmer once called the OS a "cancer".

</comment><comment><USER58> This is really exciting. I choose Postgres for side projects and new consulting work.

But there are often times when you just don't have a choice. Sometimes it's SQL Server or bust, and you have to work with it. Hell, sometimes, it's MySQL, and you don't have a choice.

I don't hate it at all. I wish it had more of the PL parts of PL/SQL because that would make my life sometimes easier.

I had to implement some very crazy/stupid statistical procedures with SQL Server. It kind of sucked in ways that would have been a lot better in Postgres.

Lots and lots of fun with dynamic SQL where you're stuffing SQL into variables and interpolating column names from variables into those strings.

It was awful. But it worked.

If SQL Server would bring in even some of the PL features of Postgres or Oracle, I would use in a heartbeat.

The tooling that MS provides for SQL Server is second to none. I love me some open source, but the tooling we have available for Postgres and MySQL is just absolute crap compared to SSMS.

</comment><comment><USER43> Is Microsoft deliberately trying to end Windows as a back end server? What is the underlying strategic outcome that makes this a good idea for Microsoft?

BTW if you reply to this comment with a "Microsoft smackdown" comment then your comment is not very interesting.

I'm interested to hear some thoughtful replies, not Linux fanboy pile-on and jeering.

<comment><USER59> Is there any point in keeping it alive?

Is it actually used by a meaningful amount of people and businesses?

<comment><USER60> Yes, it's very common in enterprise scenarios and with regular SMBs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I don't get many predictions right, but 3 years ago I stated to a group of colleagues: "By 2019, Microsoft will be the largest open-source software company on the planet." Yes, I deserved the laughs I received.

Not sure about the accuracy of my prediction, but I'll bet I'm closer to right than wrong by that time.

</comment><comment><USER62> I remember when Oracle became available for Linux - that was the beginning of a new era in terms of the legitimacy it conferred on Linux. (Yes, I know, Oracle the company sucks, but that's tangential to this particular discussion).

I wonder if this is the beginning of a similar change in the industry.

</comment><comment><USER63> Someone page Vinod Valloppillil[0] for a quote on this one. Anyone know if he's still in the industry?

0\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents)

</comment><comment><USER64> I just started a job where mssql is used extensively. They're trying to get a PHP 7 application off the ground and the lack of a mssql driver (non-PDO) for PHP 7 is a big pain point. As of Jan 2016, they had released a beta release and were taking a poll on what platform they should support next (I'm not kidding, the entire history is here: [https://github.com/Azure/msphpsql/issues/58](https://github.com/Azure/msphpsql/issues/58)). Unfortunately it seems support is secondary in this case to Microsoft, as they are unable or unwilling to allocate the necessary resources

<comment><USER65> Why are they avoiding PDO? Seems like that's what people should be moving towards in terms of flexibility and security.

<comment><USER66> That struck me as odd too (I'm not really up to date on php7, and haven't considered php on windows in at least a decade). But perhaps it's because the PDO-driver is built on the old TSQL-interface, and MS own drivers haven't been ported to php7 yet (not with a stable release, anyway) ?

[http://php.net/manual/en/ref.pdo-dblib.php](http://php.net/manual/en/ref.pdo- dblib.php)

[https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/sqlserver/ff657782.aspx](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/sqlserver/ff657782.aspx)

[https://github.com/Azure/msphpsql/tree/PHP-7.0](https://github.com/Azure/msphpsql/tree/PHP-7.0)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Maybe my secret hope of Exchange on Linux isn't completely insane after all...

<comment><USER68> Don't see that one happening. Exchange is too tightly coupled with Active Directory and IIS.

<comment><USER67> I don't think Exchange uses any interface other than LDAP to hit Active Directory, so I'd think there's at least a fighting chance that the AD requirement could be satisfied by other LDAP servers.

I can't speak to the IIS integration anymore-- I quit following that at a low level back in the Exchange '03 timeframe. I would suspect there's a clear line between IIS and Exchange, however, that could be used to facilitate an adapter layer for a flexible HTTP(S) server like nginx. The SMTP, POP, and IMAP services, though, would probably involve a lot of re-implementation.

<comment><USER69> Last time I checked it also uses a lot of RPC protocols, e.g. NSPI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> > In-memory database support for every workload with performance increases up > to 30-100x

Can't wait to try this one, a Redis-like service with all the consistency of a mature SQL database (in theory at least).

Don't get me wrong, I've being deploying Redis in production and I'm love with it, but it's nice to have an alternative with referential integrity not to mention the "isomorphic" effect (you'll be able to switch from non-volatile to volatile persistence without the wizardry required by the typical in-memory databases).

</comment><comment><USER71> I wonder if SSMS tools are going to go crossplat like VSCODE?

How great would it be to have first-class sql-server-management-studio on your Mac/Linux desktop?

I wonder if SqlExpress is going to be available on Linux too?

</comment><comment><USER72> I find this really weird for the following reason.

Only cost conscious developers care about running db server on the same machine as application server to keep costs low. Such people wont buy SQL Server at all for the cost related reasons.

Non cost conscious developers can always run SQL Server on a separate Windows machine while keeping their application servers on Linux.

Except Microsoft intends to make SQL Server free and make it replace Mysql among small developers and later help them buy SQL Server instances in cloud and make money.

</comment><comment><USER73> Microsoft, you devil! That is awesome news. It will definitely push others to up their db game. One thing is DB engine, other is a suite of tools that goes along with it.

</comment><comment><USER74> I really love developing on sql server, but...

From memory I remember when they "acquired" the source from Sybase and one of the selling points was that they could strip out all the multi-platform complexity from the source code. Being windows-only meant it was simpler, less complex code, faster and less buggy.

It also confuses my view of what MS has been doing. Maybe Azure is more important than Windows now? Its going to be kinda weird to see SQL Server on Linux in Azure.

<comment><USER75> You're not thinking like a businessman. That purchase from Sybase 23 years ago and this announcement today have no _technical_ justification. They're business decisions. The technical aspect is just a cost of doing business.

Their bet evidently is they can make more money selling SQL Server without Windows than with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> This is another awesome piece of news!

If you're interested in using docker+.NetCore+EF a "proper" database was the only piece missing.

<comment><USER76> What's EF in this context?

<comment><USER77> Entity Framework. Microsoft's high-level ORM for .Net.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Awesome :) Now a days Microsoft changed a lot, welcome to the new world (Linux). The raise of NoSql, how MS SQL survived ! amazing.

</comment><comment><USER79> Does anyone know if this potentially includes a replacement for FreeTDS. A replacement would mean open source in this context.

<comment><USER80> Scroll down on this page for more information on client drivers: [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/sql-server- on-l...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/sql-server-on- linux.aspx)

<comment><USER79> Sadly not open source and no ability to use it with CentOS 6.

<comment><USER81> Support for RedHat 5, 6 and 7 so it'll work on CentOS 6 which is re-packaged, de-branded RHEL:

[https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/download/details.aspx?id=364...](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/download/details.aspx?id=36437)

Can't really help you with the open source side of things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> They mentioned a preview available today, but I'm not seeing it on the Partner or MSDN portals. Anybody got a link?

<comment><USER44> At the end of the article (although it's not stated, and the link was down about when this was posted): [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server- cloud/sql-server-on-l...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/sql- server-on-linux.aspx)

<comment><USER82> Thanks for the assist, looking forward to testing this out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Having worked as a Windows admin for the the past three years, the one piece of Microsoft technology that never gave me the least bit of trouble is SQL Server. It's expensive (compared to the € 0,- price tag of PostgreSQL), but otherwise I like it very much. It will be interesting to see SQL Server on Linux.

</comment><comment><USER84> Even as recently as a year ago this would pass as a great April Fools joke. Boy how have the times changed.

</comment><comment><USER85> I don't really know why I would choose to use sql server if I wasn't already locked in to MS as a vendor. Is the idea that it gives people the ability to move away from MS if they already have vendor lock in? Or is it to hopefully compete against eg Oracle.

</comment><comment><USER86> I am incredibly excited. This is the first step towards a docker version of SQL Server which for our company would enable us so many options to improve developers lives. Even if we stay with Windows for production SQL deployments, this will make development awesome.

<comment><USER87> In the sign up page ([https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/sql-server- on-l...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/sql-server-on- linux.aspx)) you'll find this quote: "Please note that at this time, SQL Server on Linux is available on Ubuntu or as Docker image." :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> The reason this has my attention is because 'R' is being integrated into the engine.

</comment><comment><USER89> Never really found a GUI I liked as much as MSSQL (not that you always need it, but it's nice!) - though I'm really in love with postgres - I've sometimes found myself just thinking "why doesn't everyone do it like this".

</comment><comment><USER90> Why Microsoft needs SQL Server on Linux [http://www.zdnet.com/article/why- microsoft-needs-sql-server-...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-microsoft- needs-sql-server-on-linux/)

</comment><comment><USER91> Is SQL Server Management Studio available on Linux? Is there anything like it on Linux?

</comment><comment><USER92> MSSQL actually is really mature and performant (on par with Oracle) and I'm interested to see some benchmarks vs MySQL and PostGRES. I think it could become the replacement for SQL enterprise, even over the widely loved PostGRES.

<comment><USER75> Don't hold your breath. The EULA for SQL Server prohibits publishing benchmark results.

It's not completely self-serving. Back when magazines were made of paper, "DBMS Faceoff!" articles sold a lot of copy, and generated more heat than light. A DBMS is a complex beast, enough so that it's impossible to say if X is faster than Y for all workloads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> Just the other day I was discussing with some folks that Microsoft has made an amazing effort of the last two years to win back the hearts and minds of developers. This is another great step in that direction.

</comment><comment><USER94> Just have to say, it is great to see Microsoft turning again into a software company! Even after all the hate, they do great products and good stable software. A great example of a successful software company.

</comment><comment><USER95> I wonder if the UI management tools will be web-based like GCloud/AWS/Azure, or if they will be OS-specific. Still, it's very impressive that Microsoft is moving outside its own OS.

<comment><USER96> They'd have to be web-based, surely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> this will make it much more available to containerized stacks for sure.

</comment><comment><USER98> Can't wait to see benchmarks of this on same config hardware :D

</comment><comment><USER99> I've always enjoyed using SQL Server and I'm really happy about how it's grown over the years in features and performance. I really never thought this day would come.

</comment><comment><USER100> Ok, good. Now how much a SQL Server on Linux license is going to cost ? Does it mean businesses using Linux will now be subject to Microsoft license audits ?

<comment><USER101> Oracle runs on Linux. Oracle is a member of BSA. If you use oracle on Linux you are still subject to audits. Why would this be any different for Microsoft.

</comment></comment><comment><USER102> The question now is, will they offer up a free edition to compete with MySQL? And when will they open-source it?

(I can't believe I'm actually saying that.)

<comment><USER10> There is a free (but not open source) edition and it's been available for some time. SQL Server Express. It has very severe limitations though, which make it difficult to recommend.

<comment><USER103> Depends on the use case. A local POS vendor is running most of their local databases in stores (1..10 registers) on the Express version. Not sure how often they archive data out of the main database, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> With this trend, I will not be surprised if Microsoft releases its own Linux distro which will be optimized for MS software (e.g. sql server)

</comment><comment><USER105> of course, the major downside to this is that linux admins will now have the possibility that they have to work with sql server

</comment><comment><USER30> I bet a lot of Microsoft's push to Linux is that something like 98% of the internet runs on non-windows OS's.

</comment><comment><USER106> May not have been as hard to port as you all think. SQL Server was a port of Sybase, which was *NIX based anyway

<comment><USER107> Pretty sure the code has changed enough in 23 years that this wasn't relevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> very interesting move strategically.

would I use it for my own project's? no.

would I use it for some random software that requires mssql? yes.

</comment><comment><USER109> Very happy to see this.

MS is extending the olive branch in so many ways, and we in the open source community can learn to forgive. Still, it will be hard to get over the mutual hostility from decades past.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trudy-bourgeois/what-george- wa...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trudy-bourgeois/what-george-wallace- taugh_b_6647468.html)

<comment><USER109> So what's up? Why do you disagree?

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Now if they port Microsoft Office, we'll finally be able to say: "hell hath frozen over".

<comment><USER10> Well, it wouldn't surprise me, because look at the work they're doing to support Android.

<comment><USER110> Just because it's possible doesn't mean it will happen. Office is on Android because it has a huge market share.

Linux desktop still is very low market share so an Office client doesn't make sense there, whereas Linux server is high market share so SQL Server does make sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> Wow. Just two days ago we were wishing SQL was available in Linux so we could move away from Oracle.

</comment><comment><USER112> I wonder if i can run EF on Windows with a SQL Server backend now?

What would be the memory usage difference?

<comment><USER44> Doesn't EF just use an ODBC connection? I can't imagine that the OS upon which the Server is running would have any effect on something as high up the stack as ODBC/OLEDB.

<comment><USER113> ADO.NET, not ODBC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER114> One of the few usable products MS has (haven't used it since SQL Server 2000 though).

</comment><comment><USER115> This could reduce the cost of using SQL Server on AWS if Amazon supports this flavor.

</comment><comment><USER116> Good move. It's just late.

</comment><comment><USER56> Here is the obligatory admiral ackbar link:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA)

With that out of the way, I wonder if they will port their other software like Mcrosoft Visual Studio, Microsoft Office, various games, etcetera.

</comment><comment><USER117> A few years ago, I would have though that somebody posted this three weeks early.

</comment><comment><USER118> Oooh, I can't wait to ignore Microsoft products on Linux as well!

PostgreSQL for me thanks.

</comment><comment><USER119> Using SQL Server on Linux would be like swearing in church _silly smile_

</comment><comment><USER120> How long until Microsoft put out their own BSD distribution?

<comment><USER121> They have their own Microsoft Linux, but it's for Azure internal use only.

<comment><USER120> Thanks, I'd missed this. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/18/microsoft_has_develo...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/18/microsoft_has_developed_its_own_linux_repeat_microsoft_has_developed_its_own_linux/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER122> I can't wait to try this in the FreeBSD Linuxulator!

<comment><USER123> We havent seen the sources yet but with some luck we will be able to get it in ports without the need for linux kernel emulation ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER124> This is huge, competition for Oracle increases. :)

</comment><comment><USER125> Checks calendar , hurmm it's not April 1st ... ?

Wait I remember sun one asp server .

Please tell me this isn't sql server written in c# using mono !

</comment><comment><USER126> Gob-smacked.

</comment><comment><USER127> This is absolutely amazing

</comment><comment><USER128> hehe, No thank you

</comment><comment><USER129> if you can't fight them, join them!

</comment><comment><USER130> Isn't it too little and too late?

</comment><comment><USER131> It would be more beneficial for whole community to contribute to Postgres.

We already have fairly superior commercial solution, like Informix Dynamic Server family, which is superior in everything, except compatibility with MS, that lost "competition" (to meme-based popularity) to crap like MySQL or bloatware like Oracle.

This is, again, good publicity and excellent PR action, but my bet is that performance and especially stability will be poor, like it is with .Net port or Skype port. To bring a server to the market requires expertise with target platform which very few UNIX shops has.

Open sourcing IDS, which has remarkable technology inside, which is partially related to Postgres, would be a much better move.)

</comment><comment><USER132> Hey there! I'm trying to learn about this stuff , would anyone pls help me out how to be a hacker?

<comment><USER133> If you mean hacker in the sense that you want to learn about breaking into computers, then you've come to the wrong place.

Hacker news is a startup/technology oriented news aggregator with a comments section.

Not a den of criminals. (depending on your views about capitalism i suppose)

</comment></comment><comment><USER134> Looks like they announced this 3 weeks early.

<comment><USER135> could you clarify? I don't get the reference.

<comment><USER136> It's a reference to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day) .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER137> I was not expecting that at all.

</comment><comment><USER138> `Please join me Satya Nadella, Joseph Sirosh and Judson Althoff at our Data Driven .....

Thanks, Scott ` This is why there is a comma in grammar. `me Satya Nadella, X and Y` is different from `me, Satya Nadella, X and Y`

</comment><comment><USER139> haha i thought I'm reading that microsoft will bring MSSQL to Linux. But I'm just dreaming

<comment><USER140> Err didn't they announce exactly that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER132> Hey guys, I'm trying to learn about this stuff, would anybody pls help me out!?

</comment><comment><USER141> OMG - They'll probably cripple the implementation of this. I wouldn't trust MS on this. It sounds nice, but I wouldn't set this up if it meant we could have world peace...

MS SQL relies heavily on Windows OS API. How are they going to pull this off? With some kind of VM layer running under linux with a stripped down Window OS which will run MS SQL?

MS Should announce that they are going to fork a version of Linux with their brand MS-Linux. Hell - If they port every piece of software over to Linux, they would rule the world & back-end server market.

Any way. Good luck!</comment>


Show HN: Bookmark full text search web app - <AUTHOR> https://linklet.io/

<comment><USER2> A few questions .. email increases metadata exposure, is it mandatory?

Does this archive the original page to protect against linkrot?

Why would someone use this instead of Pinboard, which searches the unmodified page?

<comment><AUTHOR> Linklet caches the linked page, but doesn't cache referred files like stylesheets or images.

I think the cached text should be able to help the user to find another copy of the content online using Google.

I developed it without knowing Pinboard. Linklet is at least an alternate to Pinboard. It took a subtle difference approach towards the information management problem and may have a different goal.

What do you mean by "email increases metadata exposure". Your automatic signature in the email message? Linklet is not a social site. All bookmarks are private to yourself.

<comment><USER2> > What do you mean by "email increases metadata exposure".

Just that email is not encrypted, vs. a browser extension that uses HTTPS to send the bookmark to Linklet.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm using SMTP with SSL with my email client. I think that's encrypted.</comment></comment></comment></comment>