They used to mock Oracle with their licensing depending on what kind of CPU and how powerful it was.
Latest SQL Server? Yep, you pay depending on the CPU vendor (AMD or Intel) and the type of chip.
I never understood why some people prefer to buy licensed stuff from Oracle or Microsoft. Do you like pain?
[1] http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/07/oh-you-wanted-aweso...
The moment Postgres has the feature range of SQL Server (SSIS, SSRS, SSAS), supports the same HA features without hassle, and is generally even half as easy to manage, I'll switch. Meanwhile, life's too short for me to want to become a "real" DBA.
I've found that the main difference is how you work as a developer. If you're happy using a clicky interface to get your work done, more power to you. I need to be able to script everything I do, because I don't like to repeat myself. The rigmarole of restoring a db from a backup in SQL Server is just insane compared to the 4 second command I could issue at the terminal for postgres.
I know it's going to sound like a total exaggeration but I literally can't use MS products for more than a few hours at a time because of the pain I get in my arm from using the mouse. And trust me, it's not just because I don't know my way around - I spent years developing on that platform (and will never go back).
Your example is particularly odd: RESTORE DATABASE bla FROM DISK = 'file.bak' The docs are quite comprehensive, with lots of useful examples[1].
MS deserves some flak for UI-only, but SQL Server isn't one of those products (at least since 2005). MS products in general are also becoming much more scriptable, as Powershell access is becoming a requirement for new products.
I prefer a clicky interface for things I'm not going to do often (like configure a new cluster) or things I don't want to commit to memory or have to look up. Anytime I need to repeat, I either read docs and construct a command, or if it's a complicated thing, I'll use the wizard to generate a base script and modify as needed.
Probably not.
Which is why we use Spring Integration...
At times it's frustrating how often you have to use the mouse, but other times it's so great compared to any alternative ways (that I know of).
Except maybe for that everything is already integrated and "just works".
What I'm asking is if you can specify some elements of the stack you mentioned, that is hard to replicated or unique to SQL Server?
They might not be "hard to replicate" or unique, but having great options in-box, that are extremely simple to configure - that's worth a ton. If I was running a large-scale operation and SQL Server was costing me millions a year, things might be different.
"nobody ever got fired for buying IBM equipment"
So people "buy IBM" because they don't like pain.
All in all though, it is a very solid offering from MS that nobody really talks about. One of the main pain points from the past is that everyone thought it was a CMS when really it was a document management system. Now it actually can be both. There is a talk on YouTube from the unveiling of 2013 that is well worth a watch (although it is over an hour long)
.net, Azure and javascript are supported and documented best, but you can use any language and run SharePoint apps on any platform.
As a person who seems to defend Microsoft quite often on HN, I can't shake the feeling that if they get to first place in anything, they'll become massive tools once again.
I like seeing them as the underdog, it forces Microsoft to be kinder and more free, but I think innovation and progress would be seriously hindered (once again) if they grabbed the crown in a particular space.