Microsoft has gone barking mad...

PoltergeistPoltergeist Posts: 191Member
edited 2014-01-30 in NAV Three Tier
Is Microsoft barking mad? Have they lost any connection with reality? I just installed NAV2013 R2 on a three tier environment, just to find out that it's now impossible to alter tabledefinitions. That might be an error, you think, but no, it's by design...

We often develop at the clients' site. We simply take our notebooks, change the usercredentialstype to UserName, and are able to connect fine with both the database on SQL and the middletier. At our office, we have a lot of databases on the SQL Server, which have one (or sometimes two) middletiers. Our developers use these middletiers to develop. This is working great, doesn't have a lot problems, and is easy to administer. However, Microsoft has decided that this is not a good way to work, apparently.

In NAV 2013R2, they decided that it's necessary to validate the metadata when changing tables. I don't know why, but they might be right. However, to do so, the managementservice of the middletier is used. Great. I have a middletier, the managementservice is running, port 7045 is open, so no problem, right?

Wrong.

Apparently, the development environment does not have sufficient privileges the connect to the Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server and execute the validation.

Say what?

The development.... Well, you get the drift.

The development environment and the middletier now need to be on the same computer. And that's not all: The developmentclient needs to be started elevated. then, and only then it's possible to change tables.

And true, it's all mentioned in the releasenotes (https://mbs.microsoft.com/downloads/cus ... lingTables), and you might think this will be solved in the future. Well, think again. According to Microsoft, this is per design, and cannot be changed.

Are we the only one facing this problem, or are there more?
«13

Comments

  • Mark_BrummelMark_Brummel Posts: 4,262Member, Moderators Design Patterns
    First off all I do not think it is fair to use titles like this when you post an issue. People working at MDCC are doing their best and have feelings too.

    What you are describing is a "known issue" and you mention the workaround. That means there will be a fix for it.

    About doing changes at customer sites in production I don't think we disagree that this is not best practice.

    With 2013 R2 Multi tenacy is introduced to give all partners new business opportunities with the intention of not breaking the old experience. Oops, they made a small mistake that should be fixed.

    If you were a true entrepeneur you would see that there are new business opportunities with this release, investigate it and start making money with it and make happy new customers.
  • BlackTigerBlackTiger Posts: 1,227Member
    MS think they know the best, but actually they don't.
    They live in some misterious world with pink flowers, ponies and flying pigs.
    Also they never hire any professionals from real world having real live experience - this is their biggest problem for many years.

    Present MS is just one big epic fail everywhere - software and hardware. Good old times have gone forever.

    NAV2013 R2 sucks.
    "You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them.
    By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.” Steve Jobs
  • BlackTigerBlackTiger Posts: 1,227Member
    edited 2013-10-11
    If you were a true entrepeneur you would see that there are new business opportunities with this release, investigate it and start making money with it and make happy new customers

    I'm in this business since 1999. Guess how many times customers have asked anything even close to "multitenancy"? Never. Customer don't care. They care only how much time it takes and how much they have to pay for this. They don't care about "multitenancy". Also NOBODY will hire special "NAV admin" just to maintain this "database hell".

    If tuning something which takes 2 minutes into something which takes 30 is new Microsoft's "efficiency" then I have to quit this business...
    "You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them.
    By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.” Steve Jobs
  • jglathejglathe Posts: 638Member
    Hi Mark,
    First off all I do not think it is fair to use titles like this when you post an issue. People working at MDCC are doing their best and have feelings too.

    Ah well. I feel for them. But who is feeling for us who have to use this crap in the field, let alone sell it? As you can currently read in the forum, this is not the only issue. So maybe, just maybe, the title is nearer on the reality than anything else. There appears to be a BIG leadership problem at Microsoft. Somebody has got to say it first.
    With 2013 R2 Multi tenacy is introduced to give all partners new business opportunities with the intention of not breaking the old experience. Oops, they made a small mistake that should be fixed.

    If you were a true entrepeneur you would see that there are new business opportunities with this release, investigate it and start making money with it and make happy new customers.
    Doesn't appear to be a) not intended and b) a small mistake. Have a look at the botched-up backup functionality, this definitely breaks the old experience AND best practice for quite a few REAL, EXISTING customers (forgive the loud caps). The privileges thing is just on top and within the same pattern. Somebody seems to forget about the existing customers big time. And no, I don't see the new business opportunities. What I see is a botched-up mess with a lot of good intentions, but probably not fit for business in the real world.

    with best regards

    Jens
  • Mark_BrummelMark_Brummel Posts: 4,262Member, Moderators Design Patterns
    Can you please calm down a little and get your act together.

    This is a new technology based on a new customer model giving us new business opportunities.

    This is NOT intended for the existing model.

    It was not meant to break our experience, if it did it needs to be fixed.

    Please, please watch you words. We are civilised grownup people here. It brings you nowhere to shout and be ugly to people.
  • PoltergeistPoltergeist Posts: 191Member
    That's just the problem: I raised the issue with Microsoft Support, and they state that it's by design, and cannot be fixed.

    And ofcourse I don't mean to namecall or offend indivuals at Microsoft. I know they work hard, and try the best they can.

    On the other hand: they apparently really don't know their own product: It's not necessary to run the development client with elevation. Without works just as "well"
  • jglathejglathe Posts: 638Member
    Hi Mark,
    Can you please calm down a little and get your act together.
    ...
    Please, please watch you words. We are civilised grownup people here. It brings you nowhere to shout and be ugly to people.

    you're right. However, to me it seems that we have been too polite and "civilized" in our opinions for too long. Maybe there is no way to give reasonable feedback to Microsoft, because they don't listen... not just not listening, but singing loud with the fingers in their ears and eyes closed. The only other way is money - no new sales. And I can tell you, this WILL happen, but it means that most of us will change product / line of business / job to have a living afterwards. That people get a little worked up on the fact is all too understandable, IMO.

    with best regards

    Jens
  • BlackTigerBlackTiger Posts: 1,227Member
    Can you please calm down a little and get your act together.

    This is a new technology based on a new customer model giving us new business opportunities.

    This is NOT intended for the existing model.

    It was not meant to break our experience, if it did it needs to be fixed.

    Please, please watch you words. We are civilised grownup people here. It brings you nowhere to shout and be ugly to people.

    Ok. I want to hear from "official MS" one simple statement - "DO NOT UPGRADE YOUR CUSTOMERS TO NAV2013 R2". It will explain everything for me. The only problem is - there are not many new customers, market is too busy and weak and current NAV is too expensive for majority of them.

    But pigs still don't fly even if some people in MS believe they should.
    "You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them.
    By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.” Steve Jobs
  • Mark_BrummelMark_Brummel Posts: 4,262Member, Moderators Design Patterns
    The majority of the investment in 2013R2 is multitenacy and for that it does not make sense to upgrade one-off implementations.

    Time will tell if Multi tenacy is a good investment and which partners will invest in it and which partners decide this is thing that makes them leave the channel.

    Money talks. If everyone moves away from NAV someone was wrong. If in two years from now some partners are successful with Multi Tenacy and they add thousands of new customers you are wrong.
  • PoltergeistPoltergeist Posts: 191Member
    I don't know if Multitenacy will be used a lot. I do think it's a nice solution for cloudsolutions, but for regular customers, it has little to no use. But what I'm always wondering in such a case: would it really be that hard to check if a database is multitenacy (or however you would call it), so that the existing user/customer base will not be affected when upgrading. This problem is indeed caused by this new feature, as the objects and data might be in other databases, so you have to connect to the database with the data if you want to alter a table. It all sound logical, but it would all be solved if the development environment would have been integrated in the RTC (which was the plan, a few years ago, if I'm not mistaken)

    There are other reasons to upgrade to NAV 2013R2: the webclient is a lot better, support from Microsoft will run longer, it has more functionality. And some customers just want to run the latest version of NAV...

    However, Microsoft Support has ensured me that they will have the matter investigated further, and I certainly hope that a solution will be presented soon. Untill then, we will use a local middletier, or just disable the option "Prevent data loss from table changes" (which is very dangerous, but is defaulting to yes)
  • BgestelBgestel Posts: 136Member
    Just to add an other warning to the 2013 R2 list:

    When you install it on an existing server, the installation program thinks it's cool to restart your server without promting to ask if you think that is a good idea.


    And now back on topic :
    say you install and deploy too azure, you need to rdp into the azure machine to do some development. sounds like an issue to me. But then again, it's labeled as a known issue, issue being the important word. So if it get's fixed with some priority i'm cool 8) .
    **********************
    ** SI ** Bert Van Gestel **
    **********************
  • BlackTigerBlackTiger Posts: 1,227Member
    The majority of the investment in 2013R2 is multitenacy and for that it does not make sense to upgrade one-off implementations.

    Time will tell if Multi tenacy is a good investment and which partners will invest in it and which partners decide this is thing that makes them leave the channel.

    Money talks. If everyone moves away from NAV someone was wrong. If in two years from now some partners are successful with Multi Tenacy and they add thousands of new customers you are wrong.

    Yes... One tiny problem - WE DON'T A BLOODY DAMN CHOICE!!!

    The only choice is do not implement NAV2013 R2. You can't even go back to previous version.
    "You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them.
    By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.” Steve Jobs
  • tinoruijstinoruijs Posts: 1,226Member
    Today I watched the videos Waldo is refering to on his website in this blog: http://www.waldo.be/2013/09/16/nav2013r2-readiness/

    My cautious conclusion is it's best to always create a multi-tenant enviroment. Even if you don't actually need it.
    I'm not sure if that's right. :-k

    I see great possibilities for multi-tenancy. Seems like a good step.

    Tino Ruijs
    Microsoft Dynamics NAV specialist
  • BlackTigerBlackTiger Posts: 1,227Member
    tinoruijs wrote:
    I see great possibilities for multi-tenancy. Seems like a good step.

    Don't be "salesman-ish", name them.
    "You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them.
    By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.” Steve Jobs
  • bbrownbbrown Posts: 3,097Member
    BlackTiger wrote:
    tinoruijs wrote:
    I see great possibilities for multi-tenancy. Seems like a good step.

    Don't be "salesman-ish", name them.

    Supporting a SAAS based business model
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
  • tinoruijstinoruijs Posts: 1,226Member
    BlackTiger wrote:
    tinoruijs wrote:
    I see great possibilities for multi-tenancy. Seems like a good step.

    Don't be "salesman-ish", name them.

    :lol:
    Posibility; Multiple customers on 1 codebase.

    Tino Ruijs
    Microsoft Dynamics NAV specialist
  • jglathejglathe Posts: 638Member
    bbrown wrote:
    Supporting a SAAS based business model

    In Europe, with the NSA/GCHQ/whoever listening to everything and telling your competition. Riiight. This model was dead 20 years ago and it will be in short time, except we have a game changer like unbreakable encryption happening to us. It is no way for a sustaining business to do this.

    with best regards

    Jens
  • jglathejglathe Posts: 638Member
    Hi,
    tinoruijs wrote:
    :lol:
    Posibility; Multiple customers on 1 codebase.
    sounds easy enough, right? Unfortunately the reality collides with the DNA of NAV projects really fast. For what I know, practically nobody is using NAV without cusomizations. These are done in C/SIDE and unfortunately also in RDLC. And this has been this way for decades now. One (very good) reason for this is that NAV usually brings 80% of the needed functionality to the table. Standard NAV is only really viable in sales presentations (where the wrong people to decide this - i.e. not the ones who have to use it - are sitting in). Every real-life NAV implementation has customizations. As far as I understand it, multi-tenancy can't handle this nicely.

    with best regards

    Jens
  • Mark_BrummelMark_Brummel Posts: 4,262Member, Moderators Design Patterns
    You've downloaded R2. Please filter in the pages on Mini*

    This is what Microsoft uses as replacement for C5.

    In Denmark there are already partners setting this up in Multi Tenant mode.

    Yes, you can customise it further but then the mods count for all customers.

    This works, it's proven. Exact Online is extremely successful in The Netherlands and I want NAV to do that better.

    There is a market for this and I am happy that Microsoft decided to make NAV Multi Tenant rather than AX or GP.
  • vgvozdevvgvozdev Posts: 29Member
    I actually cannot understand Microsoft. It looks like they doing everything possible to destroy NAV and most important destroy NAV channel.

    They obviously do not want have many Solution Centers and this is HUGE mistake. Most of NAV customers are small companies with unique requirements. For some reason Microsoft decided that we have to write one BIG system and put them into multitenant environment. To write BIG system you need BIG solution center – and as result they aligned there pricing policy and partner policy to make us BIG.

    The result: 2013 is incredibly BAD year for dynamics NAV. Nobody wants to say this but everything pointing out those NAV sales dropped and most likely will be going down even more.
    Let see why:
    1. No new people joining NAV Cannel. We all here for 10+ years and NAV limited by our ability to sell and implement.
    2. Microsoft completely stops supporting Sales for NAV. All resources moved to AX and CRM.
    3. Small NSC cannot compete with bigger ones because of margins. Bigger ones do not have resources – because most of good people do freelancing and have small companies.
    4. Microsoft completely killed Add-on program. I would estimate that over 90% of IP that have been developed will never be moved to 2013. Before we could pack our IP in add-on and compete with other systems – now we have to sell it based on Object Price or Certify. This is completely unexplainable for me – NO OTHER SYSTEM has this rule. AX, GP, SL - all do not have object price and there development environment 2-3 times cheaper than NAV. Why NAV clients have to pay per OBJECT? In last 15 years we developed thousands of objects. We have demo systems tailored for specific verticals – this was helping us sell NAV. Now we have to throw it out or spend time and effort and certify it. WHY???
    5. Did Microsoft look what happening to smaller NSC’s? Are they working with master VAR’s? I think most of them will switch system and in some cases it will not be Microsoft. So – sales will go even more down.

    I think NAV will be discontinued in next 3-5 years. Will be good if they spin it off and sell – but most likely they will just shut it down. Market needs system for small companies with unique requirements. Microsoft does not want play on this market – some other company will want.
    Valentin Gvozdev
    Adaptive Business Solutions
    http://justjewelrysoftware.com
  • mdPartnerNLmdPartnerNL Posts: 801Member
    So the only way to backup/restore a single company is by dividing up the objects and data into 2 databases?
  • BlackTigerBlackTiger Posts: 1,227Member
    tinoruijs wrote:
    :lol:
    Posibility; Multiple customers on 1 codebase.

    Nice try. But NAV customers NEVER share same codebase. This is NAV's nature which seems like MS can't get.

    NAV is LEGO, not a car.

    SAAS will not work either. Only very stupid and naive people will put classified information (which every ERP software has) on 3rd party servers. ESPECIALLY after last CIA/FBI/NSA scandals.
    "You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them.
    By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.” Steve Jobs
  • aseigleaseigle Posts: 205Member
    BlackTiger wrote:
    tinoruijs wrote:
    SAAS will not work either. Only very stupid and naive people will put classified information (which every ERP software has) on 3rd party servers. ESPECIALLY after last CIA/FBI/NSA scandals.

    Do you keep all your money under your mattress, or is in the bank which you conveniently access online? What difference is there between that, and logging into your ERP online, whether it be private or public cloud or AZURE?

    What difference is someone hacking your ERP online, or on prem, or even a disgruntled employee doing it.

    We're 100% cloud and use a data center that rivals Ft. Knox, and our customers aren't stupid and naive.
  • jglathejglathe Posts: 638Member
    Hi,
    aseigle wrote:
    We're 100% cloud and use a data center that rivals Ft. Knox, and our customers aren't stupid and naive.
    You're in the US. If you're fine with the cloud, good for you. We, in contrast, don't trust the cloud for very real reasons. It means less flexibility, yes, which leads to long discussions with people thinking they can save some money. However, when you discover that the competition has your designs or some critical calculations, then these discussions are over very soon, bosses get fired, and everything is being rolled back, costing far more money than you have saved in the meantime. And you have damage which can't be repaired.
    I had one occasion where the head of accounting asked the head of a consulting company who just had proposed to outsource the processing of the companies legal consolidation figures into the cloud "Are you mad? Do you think we're idiots?". So, there you go.

    with best regards

    Jens
  • bbrownbbrown Posts: 3,097Member
    jglathe wrote:
    Hi,
    aseigle wrote:
    We're 100% cloud and use a data center that rivals Ft. Knox, and our customers aren't stupid and naive.
    You're in the US. If you're fine with the cloud, good for you. We, in contrast, don't trust the cloud for very real reasons. It means less flexibility, yes, which leads to long discussions with people thinking they can save some money. However, when you discover that the competition has your designs or some critical calculations, then these discussions are over very soon, bosses get fired, and everything is being rolled back, costing far more money than you have saved in the meantime. And you have damage which can't be repaired.
    I had one occasion where the head of accounting asked the head of a consulting company who just had proposed to outsource the processing of the companies legal consolidation figures into the cloud "Are you mad? Do you think we're idiots?". So, there you go.

    with best regards

    Jens

    While Cloud based services may not be the solution for everyone, it is a very real part of this market.

    You "story" above seems to be more about paranoia
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
  • BlackTigerBlackTiger Posts: 1,227Member
    bbrown wrote:
    You "story" above seems to be more about paranoia

    We are not americans. People in Europe are not so "happily naive".
    We are older than americans. :D
    Which means more pragmatic, more critical, less brainwashed and more suspicious.

    Also internet speeds in EU sucks, poisoned by stupid DSL.
    "clouds" are useless on 10:1 dl/ul ratio.
    "You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them.
    By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.” Steve Jobs
  • bbrownbbrown Posts: 3,097Member
    BlackTiger wrote:
    bbrown wrote:
    You "story" above seems to be more about paranoia

    We are not americans. People in Europe are not so "happily naive".
    We are older than americans. :D
    Which means more pragmatic, more critical, less brainwashed and more suspicious.....


    And you base all that on what? A little symbol next to my logon info? I've been in this business since 1985 and am far from "happily naive".
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
  • bbrownbbrown Posts: 3,097Member
    BlackTiger wrote:
    ...
    Also internet speeds in EU sucks, poisoned by stupid DSL.
    "clouds" are useless on 10:1 dl/ul ratio.

    My DSL serves me just fine.

    BTW - availability and quality of internet services can vary quite drastically across the US also. Even town to town in the same area. For example, where I live you can't get one companies fiber based service. But move the next town over, and you can.
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
  • einsTeIn.NETeinsTeIn.NET BochumPosts: 1,036Member
    I think the bigger issue is about security, not so much about internet connectivity. I mean your money on your bank account can't be stolen because your bank has to guarantee for it (it only "disappears" when the bank used it to gamble or the bank itself gets insolvent). It can't be copied and sold to someone else. No one could use it for another purpose, it's just a figure (in my case with a big minus in front of it :wink:).

    The business data of a certain company is a complete different thing. There are lots of "possibilities" to misuse the data and make profit out of it. Even a simple list of customers and their addresses could be sold. I think that's why it will be always hard to sell cloud solutions in Europe. But that surely also depends on the price...
    "Money is likewise the greatest chance and the greatest scourge of mankind."
  • bbrownbbrown Posts: 3,097Member
    I am not stating my opinion, one way of the other, as to the viability of the "cloud". I'm simply stating it is seen as a business oppurtunity by many companies (not just Microsoft). That does not mean it is the solution for everything or everyone. Like any new technology, businesses need to head down the path with their eyes open, asking lots of questions. But I also would not simply dismiss it based on the FUD factor (the old IBM selling method - "Fear, Uncertainy, Doubt")
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
Sign In or Register to comment.