Re: MS SQL Server vs Oracle, MySQL or MongoDB

  • From: Matthew Zito <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: hostetter.jay@xxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:47:28 -0400

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Jay Hostetter <hostetter.jay@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> It is very easy for non-DBAs to get SQL Server installed and running.
> Just a couple clicks of the mouse, connect as "sa", and you're done.
>
> I've seen a lot of these installs that wouldn't survive an auditor's
> review nor a disaster recovery situation.  But it get's their application
> up and running, so they are happy.
>
>
Also, putting my ISV hat on, Microsoft is so much easier to work with from
an embedded/OEM license perspective, and it's dramatically cheaper.  This
is one of the reasons there's so much COTS software that uses SQL Server.

So, from an ISV perspective:

- SQL Server is easy to work out terms for embedded or redistributing
- It's easy to install, so your customers aren't getting a bad taste in
their mouth from trying to install Oracle to get *your* software running
- It's cheap-ish, either when you are providing your customers with a
license or you're asking them to buy one themselves.  Every dollar you save
on supporting technology costs is another dollar that you can charge for
your software
- It's enterprise-y enough - sure, there are a lot of big companies that
want to run their software on Oracle, but there's just as many that will
accept SQL Server as a lower-cost option for running in the enterprise.

This is why you end up with lots of software packages supporting Oracle or
SQL Server as the underlying datastore.

Amusingly, though, the trend is shifting, and we're starting to see more
and more companies asking for MySQL or PostgreSQL options instead of SQL
server OR Oracle - I've even had a couple customers ask if we certify on
EnterpriseDB, which is Postgres with an Oracle compatibility layer.

Thanks,
Matt

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. oracle-l
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2014