Database holy war

[David Mandala]

The comment and I quote "that platform is the most popular in the world" is
incorrect at best and misleading at worst. Yes Microsoft is the most popular
desktop platform but if one looks at the most popular serious database
server platform is barely on the charts. 

The labor costs to run a database on a *NIX are no more expensive then
tiring to run an enterprise Microsoft server. If fact it is usually much
cheaper since the *NIX's tend to be much stabler and more robust then the
Microsoft products.

The question really should be stated, who can afford the cost of the desktop
OS running as a server? It is possible to save hundreds of thousands of
dollars by using the correct OS for the correct job. MS on the desktop is ok
if you like it, MS on the server is pretty funny. 

Given the per seat cost of MS SQL and the cost of the license to run it on,
and the cost of maintaining the OS on top of that...... The question "Who
can afford to run freeware" should really be stated Who cannot afford to run
freeware. No several hundred per seat cost, no OS per seat cost and the same
OS configuration cost, vs. hundreds of dollars per seat cost and thousands
of dollars for the OS and the same cost of the OS configuration and the
higher cost of downtime associated with the OS in question, hmmmmm.

> 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 mean, besides academia, academics, and NPOs who A) have 
> obscenely cheap
> labor costs and B) may actually want to hack the base code, 
> who can afford
> freeware.
> 
> That bears repeating:
> 
> Who can afford freeware??!!
>