Not the point the article writer is trying to make. He is a data analyst like myself, and recently experienced with more databases than just SQL Server. (It's more than a crappy ODBC driver for a crappy language.)

The point is that for a system you have paid $$$$$ over the years for multiple versions there's a lot of "magic" , "WTF?" and basic functionality that hasn't been fixed or tweaked. In fact a lot of these issues have been brought up by beginners and pros alike, only to be ignored or dismissed for years if not decades. And the point is that you can get around a lot of these issues by using software that work as well or better in many situations that you don't need to spend $$$$$ for.

I use both SQL Server and OSS. I find the main reason that clients use SQL Server is that is from Microsoft and the application vendors use it for the same reason. (Most of them don't have the experience to manage it well, so it really doesn't matter what they use...) I really want to love SQL Server, but I do find myself stepping outside of the MS toolbox to get jobs done in a timely matter instead of fighting the CSV issues or the SSIS GUI or the crazy hoops of SSRS.

There's a whole universe of tools that work well with data that aren't necessarily from Redmond. Parts of Microsoft recognize this and you see changes like including R, open sourcing .NET and using git. Separating SSMS from the core SQL Server product is a good step. Now if we can get someone to listen and fulfill some of these other pending issues, I might feel better about spending more time and $$$$$ on SQL Server.