Yes things have changed. Oracle's spin on this was the fact that you could
host a web application with "limitless" users accessing through a TPmonitor
or similar pipe into a single "concurrent" connection and make a fortune
whilst paying Oracle pitance for a single user license (extreme example but
clearly connection sharing using TP monitors could get a lot of users per
license).
"Noons" <nsouto_at_optusnet.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
news:Xns92FFE5D1CA624mineminemine_at_210.49.20.254...
> pagesflames_at_usa.net (Dusan Bolek) wrote in
> news:1e8276d6.0301090549.491a34a5_at_posting.google.com and I quote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Must be a new way of licensing... Back when I was
> looking at that sort of thing the situation you describe
> would be counted as the number of *concurrent* users
> of the application. As in *users doing work simultaneously*.
> Which would be a very small number as you describe.
>
> Obviously that has changed. Oh well, tough for Oracle.
> If IBM is more flexible, then they deserve to get the account.
> Maybe it will drive something through Larry's thick skull...
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_optusnet.com.au.nospam
Received on Fri Jan 10 2003 - 10:05:40 CST
