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

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