|
|
Posted by DA Morgan on 09/17/05 08:04
Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> DA Morgan (damorgan@psoug.org) writes:
>
>>That may well be true. But is still no guarantee that what is in the
>>Beta is in the production release or that it has been implemented in
>>the same way.
>
>
> Only in the sense that there is no guarantee that what is in the RTM
> version is also in SP1. OK, so Microsoft is still free to make breaking
> changes, but the impact on the code base has to be small, not to
> endanger the quality of the product.
That would be a good thing. But SQL Server 2005 is a version 1.0
product: The changes are massive.
>>>Keep in mind that there are quite a few installations out there, which
>>>already are running SQL 2005 in production,
>>
>>Then they deserve what they get. Anyone that would put a Beta into
>>production is a mashochist or a fool and demonstates a lack of
>>professionalism.
>
> Well, if you downloaded the beta from microsoft.com, and put a system
> on a production from that, you would not only be unprofessional - you
> would also be violating the license. There is a some sort of general
> go-live license for SQL 2005, but it applies the Express Edition only.
I agree. But just a day ago in this thread the statement was made that
it was being done as you will recall.
> Those who run other editions of SQL 2005 in production do that as part
> of a Microsoft programme, where they have close interaction with Microsoft.
> Certainly, you have to be a bit brave, but it's not insanity.
My point was development leading to production with a Beta. That is, as
you said above unprofessional.
>>>Guess what? Microsoft has NDAs as well, and when I first got access to
>>>beta 1 two years ago I was under NDA. However, Microsoft did release
>>>beta 1 publicly at PASS already in November 2003. Beta 2 was distributed
>>>with MSDN. If you want to try it (OK, just joking :-), the latest CTP
>>>is available on http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/productinfo/ctp.mspx.
>>
>>So it really isn't Beta at all. It is pre-release copies: Basically
>>marketing and public relations.
>
> Yes, that is certainly part of it. But not only. Microsoft very clearly
> are interested in the feedback from the user community. Both with regards
> to bugs, as well as opinions on features.
Feedback to Microsoft would be both ethical and professional. But we
have feedback on usenet. I think that is an entirely different thing.
>> Anyway, from a commercial point of view, it appears
>>>to me that Microsoft is doing the right thing. By making betas of the
>>>new product available early on, more people get to play it, learn it
>>>and know it, and will thus be more inclined to deploy it early on.
>>
>>Other software companies seem to do well keeping their Betas as Betas.
>>I don't see SAP or IBM or anyone else thinking what you describe is
>>ethical.
>
> I can't escape the feeling that your attitude is that becuase Microsoft
> does it, it's bad. That's not a very professional attitude.
Not at all. I teach at a university. I am an equal opportunity critic.
I would criticize any company that did it.
> I have never had reason to try software from SAP and IBM, but I have
> also been involved in beta programmes for PowerDesigner, a data-modelling
> tool from Sybase. And I have never signed an NDA about that.
Can't comment because I have never heard of the product.
> If IBM, SAP or Oracle prefer to keep their betas closed until the product
> is released, they may feel that that business model fits them well. I
> don't believe for a second that think public betas as "unethical".
Public Betas are not unethical. Using them as the basis for books and
production systems is I hope you would agree.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|