About that data portability

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/technology/29digi.html


So here’s the reality.  Today we’re running Community Server 2008 sp1 and the data is built and stored in SQL 2005.  As a result of this migration we’ve lost some attachments, images, and for the decorator in me, blog skins that work.  Not the greatest migration that I would have hoped for.  So I look around at other blogging platforms and the options I have to move the data, I realize that I’m not sure where to turn.  The content is in SQL 2005.  WordPress and Typepad run in MySQL.  Quite frankly, unless things change, I’m not sure I have the braincells left to handle another database engine, especially one that I’d only use for the blogging platform.


So the article above that urges Microsoft to make a break with the past showcases to me how much the pundits don’t understand that when it comes to data and business, one does not rip out and replace lightly.  It’s the reason entire firms are not ripping out XP and migrating to Vista.  It’s the reason firms are still on Office 2003.  One does not migrate lightly.  One HAS to ensure that once they get on migrated platform that the business is not adversely impact.


If this blog site was a true business and my “business” was impacted to the degree this migration impacted this platform I’d be concerned about the productivity and efficiency impact of my firm. 


Bottom line, migrations suck.  Upgrades are never without risk.  And for all that we’d love to rip out and start over, get real.  Real world doesn’t work like that.  Once cannot rip out without major impact.

One Thought on “About that data portability

  1. Dixon Robertson on June 30, 2008 at 12:27 pm said:

    Susan–Where is your “Vista doesn’t really suck” schtick? Here’s my post to this weekend’s Times article on Intel not migrating to Vista. Unsurprisingly, the article spawned two equally bitter threads: Mac Rules/Get a (Windows) Life; and Vista Sucks/Upgrade to Bliss. My reference to IT personnel is to in-house staff, not folks like you and Mark:

    Yogi Berra would recognize this discussion as all over again. The fact is that each release of a new MS desktop OS is met with skepticism and complaints. The loudest chorus comes from those who don’t know one way or another but are simply parroting the gripes of the most conservative group in their organizations: the IT staff.

    Microsoft has driven long-time competitors from the server software market by developing and improving its line of server operating systems. Each new generation of desktop OS is designed to take full advantage of advancements in MS server technology. Thus, Windows 2000 Pro and Windows Server 2000; Windows XP Pro and Windows Server 2003; and, now, Vista with Longhorn, or Windows Server 2008. Server 2008 is one of the most exciting enterprise collaboration platforms MS has ever released. later this year we will see Small Business Server 2008 and Essential Business Server, which extend those benefits to the SMB community.

    Why on earth would anyone want to remain with a five-year-old OS that cannot leverage the advantages of next generation server platforms? Two reasons come to mind. First, IT professionals, whose jobs depend on planning and executing a seamless transition to new server and desktop operating systems, don’t want the headache, learning curve, and risk of change. Second, the rest of us, who have become comfortable over the five- or six-year life of XP, don’t want to learn a new system or risk losing our internet bookmarks in the changeover.

    The advantages of Vista, particularly at the SMB and enterprise level, are far more than a pretty interface. Stop complaining and start learning–the payoffs are worth it.

    — Posted by Dixon Robertson

Post Navigation