I feel the same way.
Is buying a $10000 box an option? Seems cheaper than getting a DB2 licence.
--
Terry Dykstra
Canadian Forest Oil Ltd.
"Dusan Bolek" <pagesflames_at_usa.net> wrote in message
news:1e8276d6.0301080716.efe4bf5_at_posting.google.com...
> We're preparing implementation of new server. This server is from
> database point of view very simple. Just small databases with only
> moderate load and no advanced features will be used. The size of
> solution is so small that we only plan to use dual CPU unit. So this
> is just small system and Oracle Standard Edition would perfectly suit
> our needs.
> The problem is that as server we will use one SF6800 domain, because
> of clustering and also because we have one SF6800 with free place for
> another domain. SF6800s are almost high end solution, so each domain
> is expandable up to 16 CPUs. You have probably got clue about our
> problem now.
> Money thirsty Oracle in its license terms are saying that:
> The Oracle Database Standard Edition can only be licensed on servers
> that have a *maximum capacity* of 4 processors.
>
> So we cannot use for this very simple application Standard Edition,
> but must go to much more expensive EE, even if we do not need any of
> advanced features of EE. In our particular case this simple sentence
> would cost as more than 100.000$ for dual CPU server with clustered
> backup.
> Am I only one who think that this is very unfair? I can understand
> limitation for SE on CPUs used, but maximum server CPU capacity has no
> other logical explanation than robbing Oracle's customers. I think
> that with this one Oracle even defeated Microsoft in most unfavorable
> behaviour to its customers. I can see for maybe last two years that
> Oracle attitude to its consumers drastically change and now it is
> just: get how much money you can and take no care about that guy.
> However this one is probably still the worst one. What has size of
> case around CPUs common with using SE/EE probably knows only that guy
> who wrote this. Funny is that worse box which offer with same
> performance lower expansion possibilites than other is better to run
> Oracle software now. :-)
>
> Am I the only one with this feeling about Oracle's behaviour to its
> customers in last few years? I do now want to start flames, and I'm
> very positive about Oracle's products and their qualities, but this
> one just got me.
>
> Moral implication at the end: We will probably use DB2 for this
> application. I've never thought that I as long time Oracle fan will
> support implementing DB2 in our company. :-(
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________
>
> Dusan Bolek, Ing.
> Oracle team leader
>
> Note: pagesflames_at_usa.net has been cancelled due to changes (maybe we
> can call it an overture to bankruptcy) on that server. I'm still using
> this email to prevent SPAM. Maybe one day I will change it and have a
> proper mail even for news, but right now I can be reached by this
> email.
Received on Wed Jan 08 2003 - 09:40:58 CST
