SQL gripes leave a bad taste

Software firms seem to be constantly banging on about "eating their own dog food", or using their own products, in plain English. Well, after a suitably brief stint as plat du jour, Microsoft's SQL Server database software seems to have become a fully-fledged flavour of the month as far as Microsoft executives are concerned. Fancy a cup of Bill's nest soup anyone?

Anyhow, the newswires have been glowing with SQL stories about new features that will be delivered either as an update, which is expected later this year, or as part of the next major revision to the software, which is currently known as Yukon and is due for delivery next year.

Yet again, rather than telling us we should buy the current offering because it does what we need, the Microsoft camp is firmly focused on promises of jam tomorrow. It seems that only tomorrow's tools will do what we want. Then again, persuading anyone to buy the current SQL Server offering is something of a challenge. But Microsoft's recent SQL love stories suggest a stunning turnaround for a piece of software that in recent times has struggled to keep its customers.

First there was Slammer, a worm that started life as a harmless proof-of-concept, and that was subsequently "turned", as they say in security circles.

Well, the worm that turned was one of the biggest security problems we have seen in years. Although a patch was issued before the worm went wild, the complexities of database applications prevented many firms from installing the patch until it was too late.

Part of the problem is that corporate database applications often involve heavily protected servers and numerous insecure and undocumented clients.

Even if the server setup is extremely simple, things are not always as simple as they should be. For example, a lack of disk space prevented us installing SP3 for quite some time. I suspect our SQL server is typical of many Windows servers: the application is not mission-critical, and the server has loads of free disk space - except on the C: drive, which over the years has filled up to the point where major maintenance is needed in order to free some space.

Unfortunately, Microsoft's auto update feature doesn't cope well when the C: drive becomes too full. Oddly enough the Microsoft folks are not impressed by such reports. They don't understand how anyone can be daft enough to allow such a situation to arise. Neither do I, but I guess we're thinking of slightly different aspects of the situation. Did Microsoft really have a good taste of its food before serving? In the end, we acquired an SP3 CD-ROM and secured our server.

Lest we forget, SQL Server was also embroiled in its own little patent infringement case, on which final judgement was passed earlier this year.

Microsoft lost the case, and independent software developers working with SQL Server could be affected.

Strangely enough, when I met Microsoft's newly appointed chief SQL Server product manager earlier this year, he was unable to talk about the Timeline case. Like most meetings and phone calls with Microsoft, the promised follow-up never materialised.

I guess seconds are forbidden.

Have your say: reply to IT Week