I've developed a couple of database Web sites that use forum presentation/search functions similar to FR, including pcaob.com (covering the new CPA professional oversight requirements), and karlnagel.com, my business consulting firm's website.
Each of the sites are hosted on a Linux/Apache server running MySQL and PHP. The cost is $10/mo for acccess to all the development tools, capped at 4 gigs/mo ie 100,000 page requests/mo x 40k/page. (Each additional 5 gigs is another $10/mo.)
The sites work fantastic. PHP is an excellent scripting language, and has numerous built in functions for PostGres & MySQL. I followed some of the style guidelines that JR established here to give the sites a really nice look & feel.
Everytime I review the activity logs, there are always a number of failed requests. When I checked with my Web host, he mentiond that they were MS .exe hack/virus scripts and led me through the details of the failure report. I don't even want to think about what could happen if these sites were running on an IIS/SQL system, much less the hosting & development costs.
I've developed simple financial apps in VB, and use Office/W2000 as my development platform for my PHP scripts (just using WordPad), so I'm not particularly religious about MS vs. *Nix. It's just for Net development activities, I can't see how MS can compete in the long-run with smaller companies (99% of all businesses) that elect to go with open-source.
MS has replaced IBM in the old adage of 'no one ever got fired for ..." in larger firms. If I was in charge of IT in a company with even more than 25 employees, I'd probably recommend just going with MS, especially if I didn't have a financial interest. In the long run, it's better to keep one's job than to be taking all sorts of technical risks.
But if I was involved with smaller businesses, or had a personal financial stake (as I do in my case), I would never just throw my money away at MS. *Nix is eating up this market, and savvy consultants selling into small businesses know it.
Actually, there is a place for SQLServer, I think, in small businesses with simple needs and no in-house database knowledge. If your needs are few and your data is not really sensitive, and if you can deal with your site going down from time to time, then paying for SQLServer can be one good choice.
Of course if you ever grow, you'll need to migrate . . .
I'm a web developer for CSC, mostly internal project and resource management tools. 90% of my work is in Java, and I have to read and write to Oracle, SQLServer, Lotus Domino and in one case Access 97 (legacy DB no one wants to migrate, go figure).
I like MySQL. But I don't get to make the db choices. If I did, I'd use it for several of the projects I have. SQLServer's strength is in being relatively simple for inexperienced people to use. Of course, this can also be a weakness . . .
I view MS as the 'McDonalds' or 'Brittney Spears' of software. They make high-volume, low-quality goods that appeal to the masses. Now I eat McDonalds from time to time, just like I use MS products regularly. But if I were a professional caterer, I wouldn't use McDonalds food as my vendor!!!
I like the look and feel of your sites, very clean and usable. One of my biggest pet peeves with some web designers is they don't seem to realize that a web page is actually a piece of software and usability is the top requirement!