| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: SQL server Vs Oracle
Even without the obvious logical conclusion that both NT and SQL-Server take
far less training and administration cost than Either Oracle or Linux. (I
can install and configure both NT and SQL-Server in less time than Linux can
be installed and configured, and I could probably add in physically building
the server before Oracle could be installed)
Even without that. I point to Larry Ellison's Million Dollar Challenge. While it wasn't using Linux, because Linux couldn't handle the number of processors required or more than .9 Gb of memory, Microsoft beat the Oracle challenge and spent $600K to the Oracle $10 Million. That's more than 16 times cheaper!
Linux does NOT cost nothing. In a business climate time is money. It costs in time to train, it costs in salaries or consultant fees to implement, and it costs in loss of productivity for that time. When time is factored, Linux is many times more expensive than NT.
Stefan Skoglund wrote in message <3734D4F0.5C01690A_at_ebox.tninet.se>...
>Arvin Meyer wrote:
>> The cost of an operating system has little to do with the cost of the the
>> software itself. Labor is the main cost of an operating system. Training
>> curves, configuration times, hardware compatability, support costs, etc.
>> make NT orders of magnitude lower in cost than Linux.
>
>Please substantiate that claim. Are you saying that supporting a certain
>workload
>with MS SQL server on NT and Oracle on linux is more than 10 times
>cheaper than an GNU linux/Oracle8 combo ???
>
>That is a pretty strong claim considering that the hw footprint
>of NT is far bigger than Linux.
Received on Sat May 08 1999 - 19:43:52 CDT
 |
 |