Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
jondavis.net
Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
#2Yes.
Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
#3Yes.
And in many ways other than monetary.
Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
#4On the Microsoft stack side, everyone knows about Visual Studio. The licensing cost for the Team Suite is $10,939. LAMP developers just love to point that kind of thing out. But folks, the fact is, that price is not measurable as the equivalent of LAMP freeware. It’s for an enterprise shop that needs very advanced and sophisticated tools for performing every corporate software role in a software development lifecycle.
These arguments are walking tightrope of avoiding the obvious. Installing all of the Microsoft free tools will make the stack cheaper. But as soon as you want to do something even close to challenging you can bet you'd need support and a license for the real tools. Apparently it's the open source crowd that is subjecting the "market" to FUD?
Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
#5Of all of Microsoft's technologies, I have considered SQL Server, because from what I've seen it is an extremely powerful database engine with really good BI tools. There are two reasons I don't use it though: 1) it would be prohibitively expensive (for me anyways) to use across dozens of nodes and 2) it means introducing Windows into my environment, which quickly becomes very expensive and a nuisance.
Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
#6Of all of Microsoft's technologies, I have considered SQL Server, because from what I've seen it is an extremely powerful database engine with really good BI tools. There are two reasons I don't use it though: 1) it would be prohibitively expensive (for me anyways) to use across dozens of nodes and 2) it means introducing Windows into my environment, which quickly becomes very expensive and a nuisance.
I agree completely, Windows isn't that expensive (look at the difference in EC2 pricing) but SQL Server is where they get you. It's not Oracle bad, but for a small startup it might as well be.
Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
#7Yes.
For instance, let's measure it in terms of hacker news comments.
The fact that this is identifiable from the title as a MS PR piece means that most HN regulars completely lack the desire to respond.
The very idea that the question is being asked is enough to indicate that any discussion would be pointless. Clearly, this person has a diametrically opposed worldview, and is going to try and win me over with arguments based on that worldview.
Cost of my "stack": $0. A free OS, a free IDE (emacs), free tools.
Well, I guess I paid for photoshop. ;)
Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
#8Yeah .. haha .. "The shell and all that fluff is a separate download" .. fluff :-)
Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
#9Microsoft SQL Server 2008 is, by far, a vastly superior RDBMS than most anything I have seen from anyone, in every respect
I was willing to continue reading the article, up to the above line, at which point it became clear that there's no basis for anything said.
Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?
#10Scaling horizontally is considerably more expensive on the MS stack, as the StackOverflow folks discovered recently ("discovered" is a poor word choice maybe). I distinctly remember a blog post or podcast where Jeff basically lays out the numbers and says that the software costs make scaling up more enticing than scaling out.