Re:Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
by rgrieselhuber on Monday September 07, 2009 @09:36AM
(#809115)
Of all of Microsoft's technologies, I have considered SQL Server, because from what I've seen it is an extremely powerful database engine with really good BI tools. There are two reasons I don't use it though: 1) it would be prohibitively expensive (for me anyways) to use across dozens of nodes and 2) it means introducing Windows into my environment, which quickly becomes very expensive and a nuisance.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
by javery on Monday September 07, 2009 @09:44AM
(#809123)
I agree completely, Windows isn't that expensive (look at the difference in EC2 pricing) but SQL Server is where they get you. It's not Oracle bad, but for a small startup it might as well be.
Re:Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
by ams6110 on Monday September 07, 2009 @10:24AM
(#809173)
I haven't really paid attention recently, but at a conference several years ago a former Microsoft sales rep said that nearly every "enterprise" product they sold required accompanying SQL Server licenses.
Re:Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
by StrawberryFrog on Monday September 07, 2009 @10:51AM
(#809208)
Most "enterprise" products are complex enough to need some complex backing store. A SQL server database is a natural choice for this in the MS world. Even TFS (source control and associated work item tracking, kitchen sink, etc.) is backed by one. This is not a bad thing, (e.g. you get atomic transactions from the DB), but it's interesting that most other source control systems are not backed by any relational database.