Re: Money is a great thing, but strong ethic is better (I think, but Oracle not)

Dusan Bolek wrote:

> DA Morgan <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3E1C93BF.4FD63600_at_exesolutions.com>...
>
> > Who's forcing you to license by CPU?
> >
> > License by named or connected user.
>
> I do not know what you mean by "connected user". Oracle offers two
> ways of licensing Named User Plus and Processor. We cannot use the
> first one, because this application will have a lot of users (in
> hundreds). However these users will be a low activity ones. Maybe one
> single select during the day, maybe even less. So even if this is a
> small application using named users would be even more expensive than
> licensing cpus.
>
> --
> _________________________________________
>
> 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.

Ask specifically aboutlicensing by connected user. Which means paying for the total number of users connected simultaneously rather than the number that could theoretically connect which is named users.

Also ... if you have Oracle licensed by CPU ... does your license prevent you from creating a new schema? Likely not. Does it prevent you from building tables and putting code into that new schema in an existing database? Likely not. Among your myriad databases and instances can you find one where the memory requirements and usage would be roughly similar? Likely so.

I want Larry to have enough money to beat you guys soundly and bring the cup back to its namesake. But not on your back alone. Heck I have a 50' sailboat of my own and I might decide to challenge Larry for it in a few years. ;-}

Daniel Morgan Received on Thu Jan 09 2003 - 10:52:02 CST