3 ms·
I wonder what the revenue per developer is for the SQL server team. It must be enormous at this point. Obviously declining as Postgres is so good but lots of co
by osigurdson 4y ago
I wonder what the revenue per developer is for the SQL server team. It must be enormous at this point. Obviously declining as Postgres is so good but lots of companies / DBAs still demand SQL server (and it is not cheap).
- selcuka 4y agoThe article is about SQL, the language, not Microsoft SQL Server.
- osigurdson 4y agoSorry, I'm dumb.
- fdr 4y agoFunny story. at Microsoft it is common to call anything having to do with "SQL Server" simply "SQL". It was even on internal tchotchkes, like a "Linux <3 SQL" fridge magnet, presumably alluding to Linux support for Microsoft SQL Server. Since I came to them by the way of Citus acquisition and the Postgres world generally, this was first confusing (where SQL, to me, always meant the family of implementations, and the standard) and then amusing...but not quite endearing, in its imperiousness. On the other hand, they could have done worse than to name their database product the both bland and imperious "SQL Server:" they could have repeated their performance in naming "WinCE" as is the customary abbreviation of "Windows," plus "Compact Edition" which, if you simply type it out, spells "wince."
- beer2beerPrtcl 4y agoHow many devs to needed to keep SQL server running? Dozens? Hundreds? (1000?). Revenue has to be in the billions right?
- osigurdson 4y agoI'm thinking less than 100 at this point, with revenue in billions.