Re: News - Oracle Opinion on the matter

The Oracle rep I spoke to today confirmed that they consider a "named user" to be a physical human being. In fact, I pointedly conveyed to him that at our company, most of the databases are used by software rather than human beings and he still said that those will not be considered users. To be absolutely sure (and since I intend to get this clarified and written down in a contract) I asked him to confirm that with Oracle's contract department.

With only half the hair left on my head...Still can't get any two Oracle folks to agree on what "concurrent device" license is. Any Oracle folks here, feel free to provide an official definition.

"DNP" <High.Flight_at_btinternet.com> wrote in message news:38C7AE37.2731_at_btinternet.com...
> From David P,
>
> well one Oracle rep whom I spoke to today Thurs thinks it's per named
> human being. But he was unable to handle the situation where separtate
> users are created for application by application (i.e. one schema for
> each application's objects). Looking at a Oracle 8 Enterprise edition
> database here I can see ORDSYS, DBSNMP, MDSYS which are separate users
> in the simple sense of the word but are actually not humans. Another one
> from another instance is the WebDB user (who owns the WebDB objects).
>
> How does Oracle propose to handle the above types of users?
>
> Especially when the number-of-discrete-users high water 'mark' (count)
> will not be able to distinguish between human beings or internal
> schemas.
>
>
> The plot thickens.
Received on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 00:00:00 CST