• Internal costs of upgrading (regression tests, manpower, upgrade or new shiny shiny?
    • Per core licencing. I actually think per core is reasonable given the power of the processors today but I know it upsets people.
    • Over aggressive interpretation of what constitutes multiplex. Basically if you are in a web shop this is pretty much everything.
    • Licencing confusion. Put two licencing experts in a room and get 3 opinions, even if both experts are M$ employees. Stick with what we know is licenced.
    • If it ain't broke don't fix it. Loved the "The best scenario is that the system continues to work" comment.
    • Some of the things that we used to use SQL Server for are now handled by NOSQL (Redis & Elastic Search)
    • Developer community are fixated on NOSQL and there are loads of them making very load noises causing the suits to ask "do we really need SQL Server"?
    • Attractiveness of cloud based PAYG pricing model in alternatives to SQL Server.

    There is also the death or bongo answer to the question of scalability.

    • If you don't have a scalability problem could it be run in MySQL/PostGres?
    • [/li]If you do have a scalability problem could it be run in a NOSQL stack?[/li]

    Circular arguments regarding new features. We design systems to cope without them because we haven't got them, the systems can be designed to cope without them so why demand them?

    I know someone who will not upgrade from SQL2000 because he loves the ease and simplicity of DTS and regards SSIS as the spawn of Satan.

    An improvement in tooling surrounding SQL Server would be a driver towards adoption particularly if that tooling could support other databases and platforms. Take a look at Aquafold Data Studio. Supports the proprietary features of many databases, supports SSH connections, forward/reverse engineering of database schemas to an inbuilt ERD tool etc.