Trent Shipley wrote:
> 3) If SQL Server may run on only one platform, but on that platform it runs
> very well.  Second, that platform is the most popular in the world, and
> Postgres b-a-r-e-l-y runs on it.  Also, the labor costs to run the *nixes
> that can host Postgres are MUCH higher than for that other OS.
>         More important, when NT4 was Microsoft's premier OS it was very easy to
> argue that *nix, and the Free *nix OSes in particular, were viable
> alternatives.  When I advocate using *nix instead of NT-5 people just laugh
> at me.  NT-5 and SQL Server 7/8 are HUGE improvements over their
> predecessors.  They are probably SO much easier to use, that they make it
> CHEAPER to use Microsoft products than to run freeware.

I'm not typically a Microsoft supporter, but I agree here.  One thing to
point out is that because Microsoft purchased Sybase SQL Server (a
multi-platform db), and developed it from there, M$ SQL Server is not
'incapable' of running on other platforms, it's just that Microsoft
would never choose to maintain and release versions for other
platforms.  

In ease of use, configuration, and development, M$ SQL Server, is by far
superior to any other product on the market.  As far as performance and
scalability, it falls far behind Oracle, but far ahead of any of the OSS
offerings.  But then, install and configure Oracle, then come back in 3
or 4 weeks after you've hired a consultant or two to tell me how it
went.  M$ SQL Server installs and configures in minutes.

I also agree that it is quite likely that they have a lower cost of
ownership for 'many' installs, not most though.  

Overall, I've been fairly unimpressed with OSS databases.  Postgres is
nice because it at least appears to have the feature set that most
serious database developers are looking for...  MySQL...errr...  MySQL's
fast, but that's about it.

-- 
Tom Bradford --- The dbXML Project --- http://www.dbxml.org/
We store your XML data a hell of a lot better than /dev/null