Re: Why is Oracle unaffordable?

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
dbvision_at_iinet.net.au



RP Khare wrote,on my timestamp of 8/11/2010 8:31 PM:



> before. I have no complaints with either of the databases, except that Oracle is

> over expensive


That means you do not need oracle.

 > and the architecture is unnecessarily complicated. I want to know

No it isn't.




> whether the complexity of the Oracle architecture and its ever demanding need

> for a dedicated DBA is worth paying or not.  If you are an Oracle disciple, I

> don't want to hurt you and my views here are totally unbiased.


You do not need a dedicated dba to run Oracle, that is totally false.
On the other hand, if you think that MSSQL or DB2 don't need a dba, then what 
are all those ads for MSSQL and DB2 dbas for?  Recreation?




> I need an embedded database for a shrink-wrapped application. I looked around

> for the alternatives. I read about SQL Server CE, SQL Anywhere and BerkleyDB. I

> want to try BerkleyDB, but the prices are too high. You could afford and

> enterprise class IBM DB2 or Sybase Adaptive Server or SQL Server with a far

> lesser amount.


Good, then get one of those three for the lesser amount.
In fact if you really need an embedded db, what you need is MySQL. Not those three.



>

> Oracle is a good product but it is beyond the reach of customers other than big

> giants who pump in too much money just to keep those DBAs happy, who sit around

> that black dump command line screen. Why it can't be GUI and simple and affordable?



If you think the main cost of running Oracle is all in the dbas, then you really 
need help beyond what this group can provide.

Enlighten me: if it is "GUI and simple and affordable", that is the definition 
of "not needing dbas"?  Then all those ads for MSQL dbas are for what?
And obviously you have not seen the GUI part of Oracle. Or the command line part 
of DB2?
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l