RE: Oracle vs DB2

This sorta reminds me of the "answer" I got when I asked why Oracle thought that they deserved all the extra money they were going to get from increasing annual support costs during the Oracle6 -> Oracle7 days (aprx. 50% increase each year for at least a couple of years).

Oracle said that "someone" has to pay for all the extra development costs for Oracle7. I suggested that besides the Oracle6 customers (some of whom weren't even using Oracle7 yet), perhaps the *investors* would also be a good source for such funding. (duh?)

They didn't know about that! :)

ep

On 25 Apr 2001, at 6:49, (Frank N. Pettinato <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>) scribbled with alacrity and cogency:

Date sent:              Wed, 25 Apr 2001 06:49:43 -0800
To:                     Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
Send reply to:          ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com
Organization:           Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California

> You are absolutely correct. Oracle's getting this price because they can. I
> wonder how much market share they will lose before Larry switches things
> around?
>
> When I asked my salescritter about this he said "Well we sure are selling
> alot of licenses" - Go figure...

...

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Eric D. Pierce
  INET: PierceED_at_csus.edu

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).