RE: Semi-OT: MS DB != Oracle DB
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:30:35 +0000
Message-ID: <7642C3D639A75E4284658CAA38BF60A424BA4FBC_at_US-BOS-VEX004.eu.pxl.int>
Well you could try the following from our upper management on for size:
" All,
We want to push postgres SQL as the primary DB of choice for all new applications.
We should add a notation in the IDLC stating such and should push back on anyone who wishes to use Oracle or SQL.
If the requirement is such that Oracle/MSSQL is needed, then we can acquiesce, but if there is no hard requirement for these DB's them PG SQL should be our defacto standard.
-Best regards,"
Richard Goulet
Senior Oracle DBA/NA TEAM Lead
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Niall Litchfield
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:12 AM
To: rjoralist2_at_society.servebeer.com
Cc: ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: Semi-OT: MS DB != Oracle DB
I expect the pluggable database sales pitch has very similar text in it for 12c,.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Rich Jesse < rjoralist2_at_society.servebeer.com> wrote:
> Gah! Going through licensing for budgeting and I came across this tripe:
>
> http://bit.ly/10MSud5
>
> Full link:
>
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/A/F/0AFA3A2D-827B-4A39-A2D4-9
> 907AAA391CA/Alinean_SQL_Server_and_Oracle_TCA_Study.pdf
>
> ...which claims:
>
> "...the corresponding annual cost for administration for these two
> databases comes out to $1,605 per year per database for Microsoft SQL
> Server and
> $7,385 per year per database for Oracle Database..."
>
> Of course, they neglect to define "database", which is drastically
> different between the two platforms.
>
> I hate budgeting.
>
> Rich
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
-- Niall Litchfield Oracle DBA http://www.orawin.info -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Jul 11 2013 - 17:30:35 CEST