I like it. Good suggestions people. Thanks for the ideas.
Jim
--
Replace part of the email address: kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com
with family. Remove the negative part, keep the minus sign. You can figure
it out.
"Tim X" <timx_at_spamto.devnul.com> wrote in message
news:871y3bpddc.fsf_at_tiger.rapttech.com.au...
> >>>>> "DA" == DA Morgan <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> writes:
>
> DA> Norman Dunbar wrote:
> >> Hi Billy,
> >>
> >> I do enjoy your occasional rants :o)
> >>
> >> <begin myrant> The problem in business nowadays is that purchasing
> >> decisions are based on some bean counter deciding yes or no to any
> >> requests. Alternatively, the business chooses Microsoft because
> >> that's what everyone else is doing.
> >>
> >> Sad but true, the benefits of one over the other are of no
> >> interest to bean counters, it's the bottom line that counts. And
> >> who tells them what the TCO is - the marketing bods, so whoever
> >> gets in with the lowest TCO, usually gets the contract. And then,
> >> when we technical bods have to sort out the
> >> mess/problems/inconsistancies/etc the TCO is never anywhere near
> >> what was quoted, and the company has to put up with it anyway
> >> because it would be too costly to change now ..... <end myrant>
> >>
> >> Cheers, Norm.
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------- Norman Dunbar Database/Unix
> >> administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd.
> >> mailto:Norman.Dunbar_at_LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289
> >> 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com
> >> -------------------------------------
> >>
> >> -----Original Message----- From: Billy Verreynne
> >> [mailto:vslabs_at_onwe.co.za] Posted At: Friday, January 17, 2003
> >> 12:44 PM Posted To: server Conversation: Tech Comparison of Oracle
> >> versus MS Sqlserver 2000 Subject: Re: Tech Comparison of Oracle
> >> versus MS Sqlserver 2000
> >>
> >> Karen Abgarian wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ok, is there anything GOOD about the Sql Server?
> >> >
> >> > The article is maybe all truth but looks biased.
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >>
> >> Feature to feature comparison is WORTHLESS. Period.
> >>
> >> If it is not, then I will put it to that person that he is in
> >> search of a penis enlargement by wanting to have the kewlest
> >> rocking database.
> >>
> >> <SNIP>
>
> DA> True. But IT professionals define the terms of the
> DA> comparison. For example I could go into a meeting this afternoon,
> DA> meet with a CFO and state the following:
>
> DA> "We are heavily leaning toward SQL Server due to the lower
> DA> licensing cost but we are concerned about the fact that it only
> DA> runs on the Windows operating system and we anticipate having
> DA> about 31/2 days of downtime per year during which our customers
> DA> would be unable to access our web site to make purchases or pay
> DA> for their orders. Since our company does about $150,000 per day
> DA> in business over our web site the cost of that downtime would be
> DA> at least $525,000. And then, of course,there is the increased
> DA> risk of the server being hacked. What do you think we should do?"
>
> DA> And you will find most CFO's more than capable of covering their
> DA> own exposed posteriors.
>
> DA> There are things more important to bean counters than simple
> DA> licensing costs. One of them is not being held accountable for
> DA> the business being temporarily out of business. If you transfer
> DA> the risk to them they will CYA just like everybody else.
>
> DA> Daniel Morgan
>
> Yes, and its an approach which works.
>
> Last week was a very good week for all of the technical staff at my
> work. We have just gone through a 6 month review to select a new
> application for our core business. Two vendors were in the running -
> one was heavily MS based and claimed to be database neutral. The other
> is totally Oracle based. We were concerned the first product would be
> selected because we already had another of their applications. This
> was a big concern for us at the technical level becuase the product we
> already have from them is REALLY bad. They have achieved database
> neutrality by essentially treating the db as a storage device - no use
> of stored procedures, most tables don't even have indexes or even
> primary keys! It doesn't use sequences, but instead manages their own
> at the client level in a way which does not guarantee uniqueness
> etc. The product was chosen by the previous IT manager who has since
> left.
>
> Luckily, the new IT manager is willing to listen to his technical
> staff. The vendor of the MS based product realised there was some
> discontent from the technical level - in fact so much so, they
> actually offered to give us their product for free and ony wanted
> support contracts (this should tell you something in itself).
>
> We put a proposal together which essentially said "Yes the MS based
> product is being offered for free and yes it will possibly integrate
> better with the other product we have, but technically it is so poor,
> we expect X number of days downtime per year with a revenue loss of $X
> per day plus we expect to have to pay $x dollars in support. The
> oracle based product on the other had will cost us $x million, but is
> technically superior, will have minimal downtime and will require less
> expensive technical support because it uses only Oracle and this is
> the product we are most familiar with and have the most expertise
> with.
>
> We got the Oracle based solution and now I am a very happy chappy.
>
> I think the lesson from this is not to focus on the setup and
> establishment costs so much as focus on the possible downtime and loss
> of revenue, support costs and expected lifetime of the product.
>
> Tim
> --
> Tim Cross
> The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail
is
> to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
> really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Received on Fri Jan 17 2003 - 21:07:02 CST
