Meh....a good rant reduced to shambles...
 
You're right, BarryS, I quoted the 5 CAL price rather than server/proc price.  Just amend my cost example to be a "team of eight contractors" instead of one contractor.  :)
 
You might get by fine with 2005 Workgroup Edition for $3900 but that's still quite steep for a small biz environment (I've never gone below Standard Ed).
 
  
For anyone not familiar with the "Client Access License" (CAL) restrictions with regards to use of single SQL Server instance serving a single DNN instance, here's the relevant bit from Microsoft that says you can't count access through DNN as being a "single client":
 
...Sometimes organizations develop network scenarios that use various forms of hardware and/or software that reduce the number of devices or users that directly access or use the software on a particular server, often called "multiplexing" or "pooling" hardware or software. Use of such multiplexing or pooling hardware and/or software does not reduce the number of client access licenses (CALs) required to access or use SQL Server software. A CAL is required for each distinct device or user to the multiplexing or pooling software or hardware front end...
http://www.microsoft.com/Sqlserver/2005/en/us/special-considerations.aspx

 
Thanks for the reality-check on licenses, BarryS-
-mamlin

>I don't think anyone has a problem with the idea that, if you want new functionality in your legacy DNN site, the very first step is for you to UPGRADE your copy of DNN. 

for the general user updating dnn does not incur a heavy cost factor - basically all hosters support at least upto asp.net 2 - so there is no cost and no change in hosting company required for the user to update Why because dnn supports sql2000 simple as that - DNN is not rocket science it is after all a frame work to create a web site ( it has via its versions got closer to rocket science but its not yet there)

Comparsions beteen versions of sql is more to do with highly complex commercial desk top applications - accounting systems stock systems etc - here we are simply developing a framework to create a web site that will run on an independent hosting system and hopefully for the product it will run on as many of these independent hostng systems as possible - thus the restricting factor in developing any thing for DNN is the platforms available to run it on not the developer. Its called a market system.

Module developers can restrict their development tools to what they can afford or what they like and thus restrict the availability of thier product across the DNN community - that is their right however - if we fall back to the old certification debates then these modules could never be certified as they simply can;t run on the bulk of the DNN sites out there.

The other problem is the way of thinking that version updates always produce a better product- ie change in technology is king - sadly this is not always true - look at Vista.

Ok, skirting discussion on general merits/pitfalls of upgrading, my personal reason for use of 2005 over 2000 is that I develop in 2005 for all manner of projects (including non-DNN).  If I only did DNN module development then compatability would likely be enough incentive for me to go back to 2000 (therefore I agree that SQL2000 makes sense in terms of DNN module development).

Regarding SQL2005 features over SQL2000 as it applies to the average DNN admin:
Many of the advantages of 2005 over 2000 cannot be realized in many shared host environments.  CLR integration?  Availability of MS Reporting Services (side note: good article on running different vers of RS against different vers of DBs here)?  Analysis Services?  So, even if you were of a mind to really leverage your DB featureset and go beyond the core requirement of "serve a DNN website" (as John Salmon pointed out), most shared hosting accounts simply don't make many 2005-specific features and/or add-ons available.  Hosting with 2005 can have management advantages for the host but will seem little (no?) different from 2000 to the end user.
 
So again I'd have to vote for SQL2000 as, at the least, the validation platform if not the actual dev platform that DNN module developers should use. 

-mamlin