Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattkrea | Hacker News Reader

I assume it shares the same insane licensing model. I genuinely do not understand how people put up with that (outside of enterprises that normally overpay for everything).

View on HN

SQL 2016 Enterprise 2-pack of Core Licenses $14,256 ($7,128 per core)

SQL 2016 Standard 2-pack of Core Licenses $3,717 ($1,859 per core)

Not cheap, but perhaps attractive compared to Oracle.

I stand corrected. Cost is not what I was referencing.. the CAL model was my problem. No software should require a data sheet to understand the licensing.

Ahh, yes. It is confusing. MS makes you choose either "license by core" or "non core licenses + CAL per user". Then, the differences between Enterprise, Standard, etc.

Yes, understanding licensing has a cost all on it's own. Not just to buy the products, but as your developing you have to be aware of what you can and can't use, the developer edition has everything, which can create some traps.

It is simple, imagine you were the FD of a SME who uses a certain tech, but it is incidental to the business. You have two proposals put to you, and one of them is various strung together FOSS solutions and the other MICROSOFT. You take a personal risk by approving the project. Do you have time/ability to dig down into the risks/payoff for the other solution. £20k on a db from a brand you trust, as part of a £250k project. Would you quibble over it? That is why people pay the money.

People associate cost with value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com