Is Microsoft 'Turning the Screws' on SQL Server Standard Edition Users?
The SQL Server community this week engaged in a lively debate about limitations of the 2014 Standard Edition and Microsoft licensing practices.
The discussion--highlighted on Hacker News--was sparked by a post by database consultant/blogger Brent Ozar, titled "SQL Server 2014 Standard Edition Sucks, and It’s All Your Fault."
"Every release lately, Microsoft has been turning the screws on Standard Edition users," Ozar wrote. "We get less CPU power, less memory, and few (if any) new features."
He complained that organizations wishing to use more than 64GB of memory needed to step up to the more expensive Enterprise Edition (see feature comparison). After listing deficiencies of the Standard Edition--such as not allowing database snapshots, auditing, numerous business intelligence (BI) features and more--he enjoined readers to boycott the product:
"Microsoft won’t change its tack on SQL Server licensing until you start leaving. Therefore, I need you to stop using SQL Server so they’ll start making it better. You know, for me."
You should check out the Hacker News discussion (116 comments as of noon Wednesday). Even if you aren't interested in the squabbling--some readers dared to contend that 64GB was plenty of RAM for small businesses, for example--you can learn a lot about the nitty-gritty concerns and trials and tribulations of SQL Server users and developers on the front lines.
Or, as Ozar put it in an update to his post yesterday: "If you [DBAs] want to stay current on what startup developers think about databases for their new projects, HackerNews is a good reality check. It's a completely different perspective than the typical enterprise developer echo chamber."
What do you think about Microsoft licensing terms for SQL Server and limitations of the the Standard Edition? Comment here or drop me a line.
Posted by David Ramel on 07/31/2013 at 1:15 PM