Re: Oracle vs SQL Server
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 20, 10:57 am, Frank van Bortel <frank.van.bor..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Shakespeare wrote:
> > And take special care when you get tools, options or whatever that you
> > wouldn't normally buy almost for free. You may not pay much for
> > licenses, but support is calculated over the full LIST price. So
> > actually, if they would give you 5 database licenses for free, you'll
> > pay a full license price for support each year!
> > Sales reps need a certain amount of money by the end of their bonus year
> > to reach the target. This ends 31 may. So by that time, they don't care
> > WHAT you buy, but only whether you pay what they NEED. And you may think
> > you get a lot for little, but wait until the support fee bills start to
> > come in!
> > Shakespeare
> Then again - you don't *need* a support license. It's not like a
> mandatory option (but for the first year, iirc)
> Frank van Bortel
But then again, at some point you do in order to get patches without violating something or another, unless you have a deal with a third party. The more onerous part is the reinstatement fees you have to agree to if you ever need it in the future.
I've personally seen several examples of what happens when the third party goes away, it is not pretty.
Oracle has been doing this a long time, and now there is the infrastructure in the database to see what you've done and phone home about it.
One way or another, you need to be supported for databases you run your business on, anything else is inevitably a false economy. Which is a polite term for "stupid."
-- _at_home.com is bogus. Yep, she used to run around my neighborhood: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/apr/20/1n20usa223713-san-diegan-runner-miss-usa/Received on Mon Apr 20 2009 - 13:22:36 CDT