Yukon Lateness Lifts Expectations

What, me worry? SQL Server 2005 is late, but the only thing we care about is stable and secure. Oh, and extended support would be nice, writes Database Center Editor Lisa Vaas.

So, its late. SQL Server 2005, Yukon, is not going to ship until mid-2005. So what? Who cares? Users are actually downright gleeful that theyre going to get a major new release thats more stable than a two-legged stool.

/zimages/3/28571.gifTo read about the release date slippage for Yukon and Whidbey, click here.

For me, a forum entry by SJ, requiring registration to view, on SQLServerCentral.com really nails the issue. Not only is it crucial to have a stable and secure SQL Server environment just for the sake of not going nuts with business continuity/high availability/data protection/what have you, its important for Microsoft to come out with a product that doesnt let the Oracle-inclined score any points. SJ writes: "I want and NEED a stable environment. With all the enhancements coming (database mirroring, .Net integration, the awesome workbench ... ) I am a bit worried about the stability of the product. Also, SECURITY should be a major concern! In my environment, I am constantly competing with another division that is set on Oracle. So far, I have been able to fend them off with several factors and features and being able to integrate with them. They have seen how stable our setup is, and that is helping. I dont want to lose any ground because the next version isnt stable and secure."

/zimages/3/28571.gifUsers dont care when SQL Server 2005 ships, as long as it ships stable. To read more, click here.

So if it comes in mid-2005, thats cool. If it comes late 2005, what the heck. As long as its secure, and as long as its stable.

Next page: Other issues at stake with the issue of lateness.