Re: "Named Users" vs. "Concurrent Users" Lic.
Date: 18 Feb 93 15:37:10 GMT
Message-ID: <52061_at_seismo.CSS.GOV>
> In <1993Feb17.150835.29053_at_netcom.com>, zorba_at_netcom.com (Harry Skelton):
> I am trying to find out if the use of "Named User" Lic. vs. "Concurrent User"
> Licenses is standard fare for the database industry.
Last October I summarized user perceptions of Oracle license policy (the complete post is below). My favorite comment was the following:
+ I am a little confused by your requests. ... + We were presented with no client/server policy that I am aware of ... + We described our needs and they said, "Oh! You need this and this and this". + Are we missing something?
In 1989 we described our needs and the rep said "Oh, you need this and this and this". With the original rep long gone, Oracle now claims we also needed a "that and that and that".
In a meeting with Oracle yesterday we were told that the *user* is responsible for fully researching and being aware of Oracle license policies--even if the Oracle sales rep himself/herself does not understand the policy.
buyer beware,
-jean
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jean Anderson, DBA email: jean_at_esosun.css.gov | | SAIC Open Systems Division, MS A2-F | | 10210 Campus Point Drive phone: (619)458-2727 | | San Diego, CA 92121 fax: (619)458-4993 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | execute disclaimer(opinion => 'mine'); | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ --------------------------< begin repost >-------------------------------------From: jean_at_seismo.CSS.GOV (Jean Anderson) Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle
Subject: SUMMARY: ORACLE license policies Summary: users are confused
Message-ID: <51312_at_seismo.CSS.GOV>
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:35:23 GMT
In September, in <51204_at_seismo.CSS.GOV>, I posted:
> Does everybody understand Oracle client/server and named user licensing
> policies? ...
> If you are interested in comparing notes, answer the questions below. ...
Responses were few (10 sites, 3 continents). I promised to summarize, and several folks have asked, so here it is. All but two requested discretion, so I am keeping all responses confidential. Most responses were free form; this summary follows suit.
The Questions:
+ 1) Did you have difficulty understanding Oracle's client/server policy?
Everybody aware of the policy has had problems understanding and/or working with it, especially sites with multiple platforms. My favorite response was from somebody not aware of any policy:
> I am a little confused by your requests. ...
> We were presented with no client/server policy that I am aware of ...
> We described our needs and they said, "Oh! You need this and this and this".
> Are we missing something?
Excellent point. Sales reps should understand Oracle's policies and the customer's needs well enough to put together an appropriate configuration that won't be questioned later.
+ 2) Did you have difficulty understanding Oracle's named user policy?
Some users feel that this is a way for Oracle to arbitrarily jack up the price, especially since there is no way for DBA's to enforce named users at the database level (concurrent users can be enforced with the init.ora 'processes' parameter). The common strategy then is to negotiate a concurrent user license instead. One user submitted the following conversion rule:
concurrent users = (named users) / 3
+ 3) Did you request a copy of the published policy?
I'm the only one who has; although, somebody else noted "Good idea". I requested a copy a year ago, then again last month. I didn't find out until after my original post that it is not available to the public. So the next time policy is mentioned, be sure to request your very own copy. :-)
+ 4) Have you purchased a client/server license in the last year? If so, + - What platform/operating system was it for? + - What was the network protocol? + - Did you additionally license each client separately or were clients + included in the server license?
User perceptions of valid client/server license configurations included:
o Server includes clients [Novell SPX, SUN, DEC VAX]:
Clients are not licensed separately; they are included in the server.
o Floating client licenses [DEC Ultrix, PC]:
A pool of client licenses are shared by all clients on a network,
the number of client licenses in the pool determining the maximum
number of concurrent users. For example, with 16 client licenses,
only 16 of 50 (or 75, or whatever) workstations could access the
database at the same time.
o Fixed client licenses [SUN, MacIntosh, PC, Novell tcp/ip]:
Each client accessing the server must be licensed separately.
Everybody who knew about this option said the cost was prohibitive.
Two mentioned that the clients end up costing more than the server.
o "Ten packs" [PC]:
Each client accessing the server must be licensed separately, but
"bulk rate discounts" in increments of 10 are available, lowering
the cost per client.
+ 5) Have you encountered any negative sales tactics such as threats of license + violations regarding either the client/server or named user policy?
Two sites mentioned problems with negative sales tactics involving threats of contractual violations. One person mentioned the reverse (perhaps refreshing to Oracle Corp. employees):
> No never from Oracle.
> In fact it is more we who have threatened them.
This sampling was too small to be truly representative, but large enough for inconsistent policies to show up.
In a nutshell, users are confused and perceptions of policies, even on the same platform, are inconsistent. According to a friend, Larry Ellison acknowledged at the IOUW that policies are complex and documented in an "encyclopedia". If you factor in changes to policy over time, it would not be surprising if sales reps are confused right along with their customers.
My thanks to all who took the time to respond.
-jean
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jean Anderson, DBA email: jean_at_esosun.css.gov | | SAIC Open Systems Division, MS A2-F | | 10210 Campus Point Drive phone: (619)458-2727 | | San Diego, CA 92121 fax: (619)458-4993 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | execute disclaimer(opinion => 'mine'); | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------< end repost >--------------------------------------Received on Thu Feb 18 1993 - 16:37:10 CET