Re: Sybase/Informix/Oracle can strike GOLD

Michael Sanderson wrote:
>
> That's assuming of course you purchase a new OS every time you purchase a
> database. I doubt that this is the case. In fact, I would disagree with
> your claim that most people would choose Sybase on Linux over Sybase on NT
> simply due to performance.

Without a OS how can you run database?? You need a OS for each data server.
Have you seen red hat/Suse linux?? On a single linux cdrom there are about
 1800 packages (yes! 1800!! And it includes Netscape Navigator, Netscape communicator ). Compare that to NT cdrom from microsoft. What do you get there??
 Linux is SO MUCH MORE ADVANCED, there is no other operating system better than that in this world! It is rock solid, very reliable
and most easy to use. With my 20 years of experience in computer field, having
used Windows NT, 95, OS/2, DOS, Novell netware, AIX, HPUX, Solaris, Sinix I
personally rank LINUX as NUMBER ONE OS and it is the future OS which will
dominate (know that internet is exploding rapidly the world over). LInux is a
very advanced/powerful network operating system and Windows NT 's capabilities are
far behind that of linux. (The reason is microsoft intentionally tailored NT so that
it can sell more licenses of NT per workstation/server. Microsoft is interested in
making more money and not interested in delivering high technology product).

>
> Typically, an organization already has an ISA (Information Systems
> Architecture) established prior to "upgrading," "changing," or "purchasing"
> new databases.
>
> Given your statement, you assume that (A) an organization does not have an
> ISA, (B) Linux is in their ISA, (C) they will purchase outside the realm of
> their ISA, or (D) they will change their ISA merely for database performance
> gains.
>
> (A). I would argue that most companies do have an ISA. The ISA may not be
> written or documented, but a common systems architecture is typically
> adhered to. Staffing is the prime example. My organization may not have a
> stated policy NOT to use Unix (even though I'd rather use it). However,
> given our current staff, using Unix is really not an option. Situations
> such as this are probably the case in most organizations.
>
> (B). You could argue that Unix is in may organization's ISAs. In this
> instance you need to determine whether or not NT is also in the ISA. Other
> things being equal (sorry for the economic preempt), if NT and Unix are in
> the organization's ISA, a company can actually save $800 by choosing the NT
> OS database over the Linux. Is this what companies will do? This is
> contingent upon a myriad of factors beyond the scope of my reply. Notably,
> if an organization has both OSs in their ISA, Sybase, Oracle, and Informix
> are actually giving the orgs an economic feasibility incentive to select the
> NT over the Linux database.
>
> (C). It has been known to happen that departments outside of IS take it upon
> themselves to determine answers to technology implementation questions (damn
> twig boys!). In many of these situations the department purchases equipment
> outside of the established ISA. In this instance IS must decide whether to
> support the solution, lose the sunk costs of the
> purchase, try to return the products, contract support of the solution, or
> modify the ISA and staff the necessary knowledge base.
>
> I would argue that in this situations, since these technology implementation
> decisions are typically made by people with non-technical positions, they
> are more likely to choose NT over Unix. Why? Because they are the type of
> people who buy into the MS propaganda (advertising). These people say,
> "Hmm, I can buy a GUI OS and a database for X dollars, or, I can get a
> database for X dollars and just use this free OS. What should I do?" As
> you know, we've all been propagandized into believing that "more is
> better." Also, most lay-men/women can "figure out" NT a lot quicker than
> they can Unix. Or, they typically rationalize that, "I figured that we'll
> be moving to NT anyway!" People are lazy, they want GUI, not command
> lines. For these reasons I would argue that in most cases, non-technical
> people (and probably even some technical ones) would chose NT over Linux.
> Note however, I do acknowledge that in fewer instances, these or similar
> reasons (security being one), will prompt a user to select Unix over NT--
> but this is less likely.
>
> (D). While this may be possible (depending upon the overall objectives of
> the organization) it is really improbable. If an organization has an
> established ISA and they currently have NT servers and staff to support
> those servers, it is unlikely they are going to scrap what they have (I.E.,
> move away from the OS that they are currently using) and start
> all over. It would be more likely that an organization would MODIFY their
> current ISA to include both OSs. Even this presents a problem given
> staffing and training requirements and may only be feasable for larger
> organizations. I would not add an additional OS to my organization, just
> for database performance reasons, when I know I am going to encounter
> additional staffing and training costs. We could get into a cost-benefit
> analysis discussion. However, as we all know, economic feasibility is not
> the only/most important requirement. To change the ISA we would need to
> look at Schedule feasibility (given that I need the database and performance
> now, can I implement the new solution in time?). As long as you understand
> that there are other feasibility criteria, I'll not go into technical
> feasibility (which would address the staffing/training issue), operational
> feasibility, economic feasibility, or schedule feasibility further.
>
> After having said all of this, I would say that they are using this pricing
> structure for a number of reasons. However, don't assume that these prices
> structures are shifting income from Microsoft to the database vendors. In
> many instances, the opposite is true. In fact, if
> the database vendors had kept their Linux OS pricing $1600 for the database
> engine consistent across all OSs, a couple of situations would arise.
> First, people would have a cost-benefit incentive to keep with the Unix OS
> over the NT OS in many instances. And, the database vendors would have
> realized higher short-term profits (abnormal or above average rents).
> However, this would have brought the wrath of Microsoft on the database
> vendors much earlier (note this wrath has not come yet, but probably will
> one day unless the DOJ steps in).
>
> If the database manufacturers had a flat fee for their database engine
> regardless of OS, they would have slowed NT's acceptance in their market.
> If they had done this, Microsoft, knowing the database engine and OS markets
> are the most important markets (besides the desktop OS), would have targeted
> this market much sooner. Think about how Microsoft has methodically taken a
> piece of the computer world away from its rivals. They expand similarly to
> the way Walmart does... The last thing the database manufacturers want to
> do is try to lock Microsoft out of the market. If they do, it will
> backfire.
>
> Once again, getting back to the original message, the database manufacturers
> are playing a pricing game. However, do not believe they are making money
> at Microsoft's expense.
>
> Michael S.
> __________________________________
>
> gold_bag_at_yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > How? By using the "SHIFTING OF COST" techniques
> >
> > Here is the cost analysis -
> >
> > Cost of NT = $800
> > Cost of Sybase on NT = $800
> > -------------------------------------
> > Total Cost = $1600
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> > Cost of Linux = $0
> > Cost of Sybase on Linux = $1600 (Add Cost of NT + Cost sybase on NT)
> > -------------------------------------
> > Total Cost = $1600
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> > In both cases, total cost is same for the customer, but customer will
> > select
> > linux+sybase because sybase runs faster on linux as compared to
> > sybase on NT. Note that cost of OS is to shifted to sybase server.
> > Microsoft
> > is doing the same in case of Internet Browser, microsoft is giving
> > Internet explorer free but actually is shifting the cost of browser to
> > OS.
> > Now, Sybase must give OS(Linux) free but shift the cost to sybase
> > server!!
> >
> > The difference is - $800 (cost of OS) which will go to sybase instead of
> > going to
> > microsoft. Sybase gains and microsoft loses money!
> >
> > The argument holds good for Informix and Oracle.
> >
> > You are looking at 50 million licenses x $800 = huge amount of
> > dollars for sybase,informix and oracle!!
> >
> > The "CEO of sybase" must read this note.
Received on Wed Mar 11 1998 - 00:00:00 CST