[AccessD] New SQL Server license scheme is RADICALLLY moreexpensive

jwcolby jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Wed Nov 16 12:28:42 CST 2011


 > But, in my opinion, more often than not, there are 3 essential reasons why people use the product 
they have:

 > 3. Or simply that they feel most comfortable using said product.

I think this is particularly huge.  I know I am familiar with MSSQL.  However it was a few short 
years ago that I was cursing MSSQL for its obtuseness.  Now that I "know it" I do not want to 
switch.  But intellectually I think that becoming comfortable with MySQL is a necessity (for me).  I 
work in small businesses where MS licensing is an issue for many reasons including complexity and 
cost.  Having a free, open and powerful alternative can only be a good thing (for me).

John W. Colby
Colby Consulting

Reality is what refuses to go away
when you do not believe in it

On 11/16/2011 12:44 PM, Hans-Christian Andersen wrote:
>
> Hi Shamil,
>
>> But "red herring" for me would be exactly stating that mySQL is a better alternative for MS SQL because it's "free" and open source, wouldn't it?
>
> I am not the sort of person who advocates that product A is better then product B, simply because it is free and open source. Likewise, I do not believe that product B is better than product A, simply because you paid for it. I believe that open source and proprietary software can co-exist. You just need to know what your needs are and what the pros/cons are to using either product.
>
> In my opinion, the point of open source is to raise the bar, so that proprietary software vendors feel the pressure to maintain their competitiveness rather than stifle markets with their monopoly.
>
>
>> I could be not quite accurate when talking about TCO, which for you doesn't include "hidden costs"(?) - for me that "TCO" does also include hidden costs.
>
> In that case, I will include the hidden costs. But I should warn you, it will get ugly! :)
>
>
>> Hans, I suppose, it's just partially true these days (as it's true for other companies including the ones, which develop and distribute open sources software) - they (MS) lock yourself in their technology as much as you wanted to be locked :)
>
> You will need to give me a good example of where this is true for open source databases. Both PostgreSQL and MySQL export to pure SQL dumped into a text file, rather than in a proprietary binary format.
>
> Btw, T-SQL is proprietary to Microsoft/Sybase, so no other product will be able to fulfill your needs, if T-SQL is what you absolutely must have.
>
>
>> I can tell the same from my and my customers experience: MS SQL and .NET Framework  (all the main technologies within it) are very stable products, I have never had any problems that required urgent support if that only weren't a few bugs I occasionally left in my business applications solutions…
>
> If that's the case, then why pay for support? It would bring your TCO down and lower costs for your clients.
>
>
> If you want to seriously go over the TCO of MySQL vs MS-SQL or PHP/Python/Ruby/Whatnot vs C#/.NET, we could surely come up with some sort of conclusion. But, I personally don't think it would prove anything and it would be complicated (different TCOs for different use cases). When it boils down to it, they are all beneficial for their own reasons and, if they weren't, no one would be using them.
>
> But, in my opinion, more often than not, there are 3 essential reasons why people use the product they have:
>
> 1. They really need a certain feature
>
> 2. They are required to use that product (by a third party)
>
> 3. Or simply that they feel most comfortable using said product.
>
>
> - Hans



More information about the AccessD mailing list