Re: Postgres? No, thank you.
Yes, this, mostly:
I despise most of the NoSQL stuff because it seems that most of those solutions stem from hatred of SQL instead of rational thinking
Mostly. Some of it is that rational thinking about structured data is hard, and sometimes its very badly taught - and you do need good teaching on this, the learning curve has steep steps in understanding, not just in the assmilation of facts - and SQL will aways be hard and hateful if you don't have that understanding.
Meanwhile, there's Oracle. I happen to believe that it is a technically-superior product, with a poor interface and appalling documentation. Obviously, Oracle fanbois (or fan-beardy-blokes-with-sandals-and-beer-bellies) are going to splutter at that, but the published docs are only useful for looking up stuff you already know. Finding stuff and explaining concepts? Only despised noobz would want to do that, and the Oracle online community reflects that attitude through and through. 'Unhelpful to outsiders' does not begin to describe them.
You can only do Oracle well - or even acceptably badly - if you've spent a long, long time learning the *exact* jargon and the concepts *in the exact form of words* used by the priesthood before they will even deign to patronise you, let alone engage with your questions and reply with usable information - and every now and again they'll throw curveballs of utterly unfamilar concepts that you've never, ever heard of or had to think about in any other kind of software, even if you've been working on other databases for a decade - and asking for explanations puts you right back in the box marked 'stooopid Nooobz'.
Meanwhile, SQL Server has an upsizing wizard from MS-Access that can get a workable database going from the usual desktop toys and prototypes in about a day - don't laugh, most 'green fields' database projects start with data that's already been sort-of-tabulated in a spreadsheet, or outgrew desktop data tools like Access, and SQL Server will get you started faster than anyone or anything else. They might get you started badly, and sometimes 'easy' means 'too easy to make mistakes you'll regret', but a starts's a start - and their documentation explains as well as curates the necessary information.
Oh, and the product's got a better interface, with tools that do the familiar things - and the unfamiliar ones - in familiar and easy-to-figure-out ways.
Pity it's an inferior product under all the dressing-up, but at least you can get at it. And it's good enough that you can get it working and keep it working. Oracle make it really, really difficult for a medium-sized company to get the knowledge and the tools to implement the advantages that make it a better product that SQL Server - you can't even do Oracle badly unless you're a full-time Oracle incompetent, and they're just as expensive to rent or employ as as a full-time Oracle expert.
...So Oracle's expensive licensing is just the beginning of their cost disadvantage.
As for Postgres? It's a good database engine, but the interface and the tools available to developers show its age. So people are unwilling to work with it.
Sybase.. Can't really comment. Haven't used it for a decade; back then it was a better DBE than SQL-Server, but was falling behind because M$ threw a lot of money at all the other stuff that goes with building, owning and using databases.
MySQL. I'm not quite in the camp that says 'The stupid, it hurts' but it's primarily aimed at people who'd rather not do the hard thinking about structured data. Beyond that, I am skeptical about some of the performance benchmarks and comparative reports about the costs of scaling-up - they are not as independent as I'd like - so its probably best that I offer no comment on that.