Hacker News Reader

Comment by oldprogrammer2 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

>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.

There's a special web licence for website, which doesn't use CALS.

If you building some internal business app, then you need CALS.

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.

"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. "

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?

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.

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.

My whole point has been that Microsoft solutions are expensive. Is 6.5K per core cheap to you?[0]

[0]https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/sql-server-pr...

Relative to salaries required to get similar features setup on open source databases with support, yes.

EnterpriseDB which is basically support for PostGres is almost as expensive.

> There's a special web licence for website, which doesn't use CALS.

Special licenses for various uses cases is another big plus for FOSS/PostgreSQL. Life is easier when adding database nodes or spinning up a dev/qa database is purely a technical issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com