4 ms·

Because very often it's not up to the developer/architect to pick the technology to work with. Also what seems expensive to you, very often is not so for the cu

Because very often it's not up to the developer/architect to pick the technology to work with. Also what seems expensive to you, very often is not so for the customer.

cmdrfred 10y ago
At the place I work SQL with CALS and software assurance runs 300k. In a free market, I expect that soon people will build solutions on open source alternatives and undercut the competition dramatically.
- mvitorino 10y ago
  Sure. But open source business models are not trivial to succeed or scale. RethinkDB is shutting down and MySQL ended up in Oracle's hands. Postgres is a bit unique, but still lacks good and friendly developer and management tools and better support from cloud providers.
- oldprogrammer2 10y ago
  As a counterpoint, we have a 2008 R2 instance that cost us about $13K back in 2011. Granted, it's a two processor, standard edition license, so we recently upgraded to SSD's and upgraded to higher core processors. Also, the Windows Server license was about $800, I believe. No CALs required for either Windows or SQL Server in this situation.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    >No CALs required for either Windows or SQL Server in this situation. Either you have Enterprise Windows (costs about as much as professional with the CALS), or the software you are running is only local to that server. The Microsoft treadmill is expensive.
    - UK-AL 10y ago
      There's a special web licence for website, which doesn't use CALS. If you building some internal business app, then you need CALS.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        If you are taking about data center, that's 50k. Cheaper, but I doubt it add's 50k of value over the alternatives for most users.
        UK-AL 10y ago
        "Windows Server 2012 R2 configured to run Web Workloads do not require CALs or External Connectors. Web workloads, also referred to as an internet web solution, are publically accessible (e.g. accessible outside of the firewall) and consist only of web pages, web sites, web applications, web services, and/or POP3 mail serving. Access to content, information, and/or applications within the internet web solution must be publically accessible. In other words, they cannot be restricted to you or your affiliate’s employees. "
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        SQL server != Windows Server That also appears to only cover web servers that do not have any login capability. Why on earth would you spend that kind of money to host a static site?
        brazzledazzle 10y ago
        It's for services available to the public. So if you wanted to build a site that required payment to sign up you could do so.
        UK-AL 10y ago
        SQL sever doesn't have a "Data center" license. You would license SQL sever on a core based licensing model, which doesn't use CAL's. If anyone can purchase a login to your website, that's still classed as public. What its means is internal apps require licenses.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- brazzledazzle 10y ago
  Do you have a lot of SQL servers? If not, why not just get proc licenses?

Because very often it's not up to the developer/architect to pick the technology to work with. Also what seems expensive to you, very often is not so for the customer.

cmdrfred 10y ago

At the place I work SQL with CALS and software assurance runs 300k. In a free market, I expect that soon people will build solutions on open source alternatives and undercut the competition dramatically.

mvitorino 10y ago
Sure. But open source business models are not trivial to succeed or scale. RethinkDB is shutting down and MySQL ended up in Oracle's hands. Postgres is a bit unique, but still lacks good and friendly developer and management tools and better support from cloud providers.
oldprogrammer2 10y ago
As a counterpoint, we have a 2008 R2 instance that cost us about $13K back in 2011. Granted, it's a two processor, standard edition license, so we recently upgraded to SSD's and upgraded to higher core processors. Also, the Windows Server license was about $800, I believe. No CALs required for either Windows or SQL Server in this situation.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  >No CALs required for either Windows or SQL Server in this situation. Either you have Enterprise Windows (costs about as much as professional with the CALS), or the software you are running is only local to that server. The Microsoft treadmill is expensive.
  - UK-AL 10y ago
    There's a special web licence for website, which doesn't use CALS. If you building some internal business app, then you need CALS.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      If you are taking about data center, that's 50k. Cheaper, but I doubt it add's 50k of value over the alternatives for most users.
      - UK-AL 10y ago
        "Windows Server 2012 R2 configured to run Web Workloads do not require CALs or External Connectors. Web workloads, also referred to as an internet web solution, are publically accessible (e.g. accessible outside of the firewall) and consist only of web pages, web sites, web applications, web services, and/or POP3 mail serving. Access to content, information, and/or applications within the internet web solution must be publically accessible. In other words, they cannot be restricted to you or your affiliate’s employees. "
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        SQL server != Windows Server That also appears to only cover web servers that do not have any login capability. Why on earth would you spend that kind of money to host a static site?
        brazzledazzle 10y ago
        It's for services available to the public. So if you wanted to build a site that required payment to sign up you could do so.
        UK-AL 10y ago
        SQL sever doesn't have a "Data center" license. You would license SQL sever on a core based licensing model, which doesn't use CAL's. If anyone can purchase a login to your website, that's still classed as public. What its means is internal apps require licenses.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
brazzledazzle 10y ago
Do you have a lot of SQL servers? If not, why not just get proc licenses?