Database Business Problems at Oracle? 210
abb_road writes "Wall Street responded to yesterday's report of a 42% rise in profits by pushing Oracle's stock down. Despite a 77% increase in applications business, investors are worried that Oracle's core database business remains comparatively stagnant. Though Ellison claims that the DB business will grow in double digits over the next few years, it seems that more companies are switching to open source rather than paying Oracle $40,000 a processor."
Works for me (Score:3, Interesting)
And good books [blogs.com] keep coming out for it, too, which is reassuring.
Re:Works for me (Score:3, Insightful)
If the cost of lower performance is less than $40K per CPU then OSS is the way to go. Since OSS is in a continual state of improvement, I've got to think that it is the selection of choice for anyone with a budget. It is most certainly at least worth a look, even to an entrenched Oracle or MSSQL camp.
-nB
Re:$40,000 + DBA (Score:2)
The cost of a good DBA is not going to be much different for one skilled in the art of MySQL tuning or PostgreSQL tuning either. I t
Re:Works for me (Score:5, Insightful)
In an odd way, this may make Oracle's high end database product more secure.
There is no way that Postgres or MySQL is even close to the kinds of scalability and features that Oracle has. Trust me. It's just that people like you don't need certain capabilities that are a very good deal for Oracle customers. Nor do 99% of all applications. But in terms of value 99% of applications doesn't amount to 99% of profit for an outfit like Oracle.
There's no way that MS SQL Server comes close either. Trust me on this one too. I've used both. SQL Server is perfectly adequate and maybe even preferable for many applications, but comparing it to Oracle is a joke. Just recently I read a MS announcement of a middling-huge application that was done on SQL server. I was impressed, until I realized it wouldn't be remotely newsworthy if it has been done in Oracle. It was impressive for SQL Server, and probably only possible given certain aspects of the application.
What Postgres and MySQL mean is that in the long term there are no profits in the low end of the database market for general RDBMS duties, and not much future in the mid-range. Take them out of the picture, and Microsoft has a self-funded machine for nibblng its way into the high end. I'm not saying they won't get there, but I see a potential for financial pain along the way. The market position for SQL Server is really this: it integrates well with the MS tools, and its available on all MS OS platforms (Wince and NT derivatives). If it weren't for that, then it would be a sitting duck.
Oracle XE there mainly as a way to keep mind share. It means a lot more people will be familiar with Oracle technology, providing a cadre of workers who are prepared for large scale apps.
Re:Works for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Works for me (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, this is capitalism. If somebody is willing to pay $20K where $3K would do, well... On the other hand, Microsoft made Oracle stand up and take notice. As a result of this, Oracle Standard has been priced pretty much the same as SQL Server. Th
Re:Works for me (Score:2)
This is what Microsoft does best, they put out a product and slowly over time make it eat into market share and improve the features until it becomes the market leader. They h
Re:Works for me (Score:2)
I suspect that Oracle Express is more pitched in the same space as MS SQL Server Express (and MSDE before it) - as a database engine for development and small deployments and a shoe-in for the commercial products if / when they are needed. IBM do likewise. Perhaps the penny has dropped that MS is getting a lot of business this way.
To be honest, I reckon Postgres & MySQL should be producing "express" versions too for XP. Th
Re:Run Oracle on Opensource DB (Score:2)
I'd rather have the programming interface of Postgres with the DBA abilties of Oracle.
Re:Works for me (Score:2)
A terabyte may not be that big in terms of finding hardware that can hold it, but it's still a hell of a lot of data. Only very large companies and those in industries that naturally have a lot of data (telecom, biotech, credit card processing, etc.) are going to be able to find something useful to do with a terabyte of relational storage. I do expect that to go up, though, with RF
Re:Works for me (Score:2)
I can create a 1TB with a couple of blobs. Big deal.
Re:Works for me (Score:2)
Re:Works for me (Score:2)
I would expect that my doctor's office, with 20 years of history for six doctors, probably has a couple hundred meg's worth of relational data.
Re:Works for me (Score:2)
The market is maturing (Score:3, Interesting)
Main use (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about open source... (Score:4, Interesting)
Before you go all Slashbot on me, realize that my company is very conservative with respect to technology, so Open Source is unfortunately not an option here...
Re:I don't know about open source... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I don't know about open source... (Score:2)
market economics (Score:2)
That just goes to show you...
If government bureaucrats Like Cheney would just privatize these things it would be much more efficient.
Why I'm sure that a private sector professional would have been able to shoot many more than one friend with a 28-gauge shotgun.
These politicians have to learn more about the inevitability of free market economics.
Re:I don't know about open source... (Score:3, Informative)
And of course, there's always the "nobody gets fired for picking Oracle" argument.
Re:I don't know about open source... (Score:2)
Yeah, they just get downsized after the DB works and is paid for.
Re:I don't know about open source... (Score:2)
So what happened to your servers when Sun decided to Open Source the Solaris operatinf system? You started out as conservative as can be with Sun SPARC servers runnnig Solaris and are happy with none of that new untried stuff like Intel based servers and then without asking you Sun Make Solaris open source. Thank God for Microsoft. They are now the only ones with a fully closed source OS.
Re:I don't know about open source... (Score:3, Interesting)
Pl/pgSql (That's PostgreSQL's pl/sql) is VERY much like Oracles. Naturally it lack some of it's features, but a rewrite from pl/sql to pl/pgsql is dead easy. That means less manhours ... money talks :)
Re:I don't know about open source... (Score:5, Insightful)
Forgiving is not something I want out of a database. I want my database to take every possible opportunity to reject bad data.
Re:I don't know about open source... (Score:2)
That or write your queries the long way with force plan, forced joins and indexes. I've found some cases though where you can't reproduce the execution plan this way.
Open Source vs. Oracle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Source vs. Oracle (Score:2)
What if you need 2 or more processors? What if all your IT work is done in India because of the bean counters and these bean counters are needed to pay for Oracle on your 4 cpu system? Fat chance it will get approvaed.
Sql-Server is insanely popular because you can get support for 1/10th the cost of Oracle. There is also db2 and Sysbase or Postgresql.
Keep in mind you can find a jr database programmer/admin for $40-60k a year. The same cost savings from not using Oracl
Re:Open Source vs. Oracle (Score:2, Redundant)
Not to say you don't get anything for the 40 large a processor, you definitely do, but let's not pretend you get some trivial to manage, point-and-click product that you can hire a monkey to deal with. That's absurd.
Re:Open Source vs. Oracle (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Open Source vs. Oracle (Score:2)
Re:Open Source vs. Oracle (Score:2)
Well done, I was all ready to disagree with you... until you concluded that you have the same issue
Re:Open Source vs. Oracle (Score:2)
It's about sales, not technology or open source (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, Oracle has been very generous in allowing developer downloads of their DBMS; I was able to take their Linux port, install it on an old box running Red Hat, and port a Microsoft SQL Server-based back end over to Oracle in a couple of days just as an experiment. Obviously, to actually use the product would cost some bucks but this kind of flexibility is what helps keep Oracle's tentacles in so many businesses.
The other thing that the analysts ignored is that the database and enterprise software business isn't so much about having innovative technology, contrary to what was asserted in the Business Week article but rather having an effective sales organization. DBMS and enterprise management software is sales driven, not innovation driven. Executives don't watch commercials about sexy features in the latest rev of Oracle or Sql Server, then order a few copies from Amazon. It's the inside sales teams that patiently build relationships over the years. IBM knows this, Oracle knows this, and MS knows it too. Sybase tried but their hubris and arrogance brought them down. (direct personal experience with that!)
No doubt, while Larry crows about upcoming tech innovations, he's internally yelling at the sales teams to get more aggressive, offer more discounts, and steal more customers from Bill and from the SAP people. He'll eke out a few more percentage points of market share, and the investors will be satisfied for a couple more quarters. That's how the business works.
Re:It's about sales, not technology or open source (Score:4, Interesting)
It's almost like Oracle is doing everything they possibly can to promote MS Sql. They just went gestapo on us about licensing and decided that every person who walks up to a kiosk running an app with an oracle back end needs to be a named user, that or we need to buy per processor licensing. $80,000 for our dual proc backend box buys a lot developer time to port to a different database.
Re:It's about sales, not technology or open source (Score:3, Interesting)
Oracle also went gestapo at my site as well (state government), insisting on licenses for development databases (right or wrong, they've never done that before). They insist on the same number of CPU licenses for *all options*
We Made That Mistake (Score:2)
Re:It's about sales, not technology or open source (Score:2)
TRY and get a straight answer out of Oracle. "well, what do you want to use it for" - Answer - none of your business. Tell me what my price options are, and let ME decide what license I want - I might change my config - just give me a price list, and I'
Re:It's about sales, not technology or open source (Score:2)
Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! (Score:5, Interesting)
What is Postgresql missing that Oracle has? What does Oracle have that Postgres is missing? When do these features matter?
Let the flaming begin...
Re:Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I'm using PostgreSQL now because I keep running i
OracleDB prerequisites. (Score:2)
Having tried to install Oracle on all sorts of operating systems over the years it has been my experience that it really helps to run OracleDB on one of the certified Linux distributions: SUSE Linux Enterprise Server or Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS/ES. Oracle does not guarantee that an OracleDB will run
Re:OracleDB prerequisites. (Score:2)
The Oracle servers at work were installed by DBA's who really knew their stuff. Our current application runs great under Oracle since a lot of Oracle tuning was done. I wouldn't want to have to try to
Re:Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! (Score:2)
There are clustered versions of PostgreSQL out there with the
Re:Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! (Score:2)
Type in "lsnrctl status" and take a look at the results - you'll have to probably change your listener. Take a look in $oracle_home\network\admin\listener.ora and if you see only a SID_NAME = PLSExtProc entry, chance are that you haven't set up your listener correctly. Also, make sure you're static IP.
Re:Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! (Score:2)
Re:Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! (Score:2)
Re:Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! (Score:3, Interesting)
Since 90% of database needs don't even approach that, Posgresql acts as a fine replacement, and 70% of installs could do fine with Mysql as well.
The thing I wonder most is the fact that between MySQL,Postgres,
Re:Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/oracle/115560 [suite101.com]
However, it doesn't really get into nitty gritty. Nice primer, though.
-Tony
Re:Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! (Score:5, Informative)
Here's Google's cache:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:3Z3Pzf07oboJ:
-Tony
off-the-bat comparison (Score:5, Informative)
- speed
- mutli-way replication
- multi-node clusters
- advanced SQL (cubes, trees, etc)
- finer details of physical data layout (cluster tables, partitioned tables, etc)
- stability (unless you use the bleeding edge, which is brittle, alas)
PG's strong points Oracle:
- price
- relative simplicity and lower resource consumption
- easier administration
- good compatibility with Oracle's SQL
- source availability
Also, PG is perceived as less stable than Oracle, and even less than MySQL. It will take time to dispel this (if untrue).
Re:off-the-bat comparison (Score:2)
- advanced SQL (cubes, trees, etc)
If by "advanced", you mean "nonstandard and proprietary". I'll admit, I do like Oracle's START WITH/CONNECT BY extensions for navigating a results set as a tree, but woe to the developer who later has to port an application that relies on them to another RDBMS that only implements the SQL92 standard dialect.
Re:off-the-bat comparison (Score:2)
A couple of these are mutually exclusive, in my opinion, namely clustering and stability. At least if you're using an Oracle-only setup, such as OCS/ASM. To really get clustered stability out of Oracle you really need a third part
Could you elaborate? (Score:2)
To really get clustered stability out of Oracle you really need a third party clustered filesystem.
What exactly do you envision as a stable Oracle cluster? Specifically, what is the host OS, and what is the third-party clustered filesystem for that OS?
Thanks!
Re:off-the-bat comparison (Score:2)
Re:off-the-bat comparison (Score:2)
The only potential issue that comes to mind is that very large hashed aggregations can sometimes run the server out of RAM, if the planner makes a drastically incorrect guess about the size of the hashed aggregate's result set (this should just result in crashing the backend executing the query and not effecting concurrent backends, but on Linux the OOM killer might take down something unrelated). That's definitely a defect (hashed aggs should spill to disk once th
Re:Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll tell you one thing: window functions [savage.net.au]. They're useful for reducing the number of subqueries you have to use in certain situations useful in reporting, among other things. You can find a number of good examples of the use of window functions in Anthony Molinaro's SQL Cookbook [oreilly.com].
Re:Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! (Score:3)
FWIK, Oracle gives you speed and scalability over PostgreSQL. It also gives you a better pool of DBAs to pick from. Sure a pimply HS dropout _might_ know everything there is about P
Re:Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! (Score:2)
Er.... :-)
Most of the other responses have covered what I presume you meant to ask :) pretty well, but there's one feature of PostgreSQL that I particularly like (and didn't see mentioned) - the range of stored-procedure programming languages [wikipedia.org] available. The choices include PL/PgSQL, PL/Java, PL/Perl, plPHP, PL/Python, PL/R (I used this in one project solely for its handy median function), PL/Ruby, PL/sh,
Lies.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we have to stoop to this to make our point?
You can get Oracle server for as cheap as $150 per named user, with a three user minimum last I checked. This is perfect for many small business applications. And there are pricing schemes that gradually go up from there depending on the situation.
There are many great open source databases ( I use SQLite extensively ), but the commercial vendors still bring a lot to the table, and sometimes are even the best choice all things considered ( gasp! )
Re:Lies.... (Score:2)
As for Oracle vs. free databases, the world is mostly like, and will continue to become even more like, the trucking industry. There are zillions of people with pickup trucks and zillions of companies with big rigs. There is very little overlap in their use. Both segments continue
Re:Lies.... (Score:2)
Now this criteria doesn't limit you merely to Oracle. It can include db2 or mssql. However, the point is that you don't buy Oracle for speed or features, you buy it to protect your data. If you have an app that is so small that you can run it on the $150/per user version of Oracle then you probably don't need the high powered DBA either.
Oracle doesn't require 60K per cpu or the 150K primadonna.
Although it can certainly scale up to apps that would require both.
Re:Lies.... (Score:2)
Slashdot: Where if MS or SCO does it, it's FUD, but if we do it, it's insightful commentary.
Re:Lies.... (Score:2)
If you are happy to depend on a piece of proprietary software with a strong lock-in, yes, it may have advantages.
But don't forget that the one selling you software will take advantage of the lock-in latter.
Not all open source. (Score:2)
Big biz problem (Score:2)
Wrong assumption (Score:2)
Oracle should take care...! (Score:2)
I wonder what the situation would be if the likes of MySQL, PostGreSQL and other OSS DBs were not around. I guess Microsoft and IBM would be laughing their way to the bank every year.
mysql (Score:2)
Re:mysql (Score:3, Informative)
MySQL will fall flat on its face far sooner than Oracle will. If your DB is tens to hundreds of terabytes, with gig and larger entries (think VLSI design here) then MySQL will not hold up (well). That said there are other OSS db's that will hold up better, though they are slower.
-nB
Re:mysql (Score:2)
A filesystem is a DB. Why in the world do you need 1 gig VLSI entries in a DB? Can you search on that?
I'm VLSI ignorant. I just know it exists and its for chip design, but what is having 1 gig entries in a DB going to give you over just putting it on a disk somewhere will not, and have a DB with keywords or something to point you to the file?
To me, 1 gig VLSI datafields se
Re:mysql (Score:2)
The last part I worked on contained about 5% new code and 95% re-use. Need an array of SRAMS for register memory, search array, register, SRAM and see what comes up. Really quite cool.
The actual layout AFAIK is stored on disk as it is really a bunch of high res TIFFs or such.
-nB
Re:mysql (Score:2)
Believe me... I know. We have an application that supports both MySQL and Oracle. The Oracle side of development just leaves me wondering how the company became so successful with the junk it calls a DB server and API libraries, along with a hint of wanting to firebomb the corporate office that happens to be just up the road.
Re:mysql (Score:2)
ROFLMAO!!!!
Re:mysql (Score:2)
We use primarily MySQL for EVERYTHING. There are just now rumblings in the company to migrate to PostreSQL, primarily for what our developers are saying "better transaction support".
So PostgreSQL vs the "big guys". Anything that stands out? MySQL is certainly not "a toy". It's worked very well for us for YEARS, but I'd like to hear a logical explanation of what we're missing out on.
Re:mysql (Score:2)
This is a GoodThing® (Score:3, Insightful)
When you look at software purchasing patterns, it seems that most software purchases are driven by four things: cost, features, familiarity, and "safety." Open Source software usually competes strongly on the first, moderately well on the second, and not so well on the third and fourth. Asking DBAs to use something they're not familiar with means that they're going to be working slower and harder--not the choice that most people make. In addition, the "nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM" syndrome sometimes prevents Open Source choices from getting a fair shake. But it appears that Open Source tools are starting to compete on those last two fronts as well.
A lot of geeks like to fiddle around with software on their own, and the "free" part of Open Source plays right to this. After all, are you going to pay for a Microsoft Sequel Server license, or try out MySQL when you're doing something for your own satisfaction? I'm a good example of something similar: I wanted some dynamic Web pages, but I didn't want to pay for ASP support through my ISP. So instead I started looking into PHP and eventually wound up using PHP to handle the dynamic content.
Once people involved in making decisions (not perhaps the decision-makers themselves, but people with input) start using Open Source for themselves, a lot of the "I don't know it so it's harder and slower" goes right out the window. Sure your average CRM developer might not be making the decision, but if they're asked about DB support and they know PostgreSQL because that's what they used to build their roll-your-own blog, they may offer that as an option.
As Open Source comes into use in the market, that helps alleviate the "safety" factor, too. When you can point to a large organization that's successfully running enterprise-grade applications on Open Source, it's easier for the decision makers to rationalize choosing an Open Source solution.
$40K/CPU is BS (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you're negotiating with Oracle directly, something I do not recommend, then all you have to do is mention mySQL or PostgreSQL, and Oracle will drop their prices.
Re:$40K/CPU is BS (Score:3, Interesting)
$40K/CPU is for the whole boat (Score:2, Interesting)
The "free" edition is that - free with a machine size/data volume limit.
The "Standard Edition One" is prolly the most compelling - $5k per proc LIST. Can only run on Dual proc boxen and can't cluster. Has ALL the features of enterprise besides that.
There is another edition in between that allows bigger boxen and clustering but misses out on some of the uber fancy stuff in enterprise (which, while cool - isn't st
Re:$40K/CPU is BS (Score:2)
If Oracle doesn't want to come off looking bad in these types of cost comparisons, they should stop telling people that their product costs $40K/CPU. Who else can be blamed for the perception that Oracle costs that much -- besides Oracle themselves?
Re:$40K/CPU is BS (Score:2)
If I worked for Oracle, and I was negotiating a price with a customer that brought up MySQL, then I would assume it was my job to get whatever money I could out of the person and then quickly leave.
If someone cannot decide whether a free DB with little to no data integrity assurance vs a potential $40k/CPU licensed DB is the right tool for th
Re:$40K/CPU is BS (Score:2)
I understand this.
What my point was if a customer does not understand this, and cannot decide if a freely downloadable DB vs Oracle is right for the job, then the customer is not that bright, and will probably not be in business very long, despite what DB they choose.
nitpicking (Score:4, Insightful)
I am sure that there are many consulting firms that can mimick this kind of turn-key solution using PostgreSQL, but I'm not sure that they are as established--that is, give the CEO of XYZ company the warm & fuzzy that they require when they're about to undertake a multi-million dollar project whose backbone has to be a rock-solid DBMS.
It would be fabulous if Vault 10 IT consulting firms could provide this level of service using open source but that's just not the case Right Now(tm).
Its hardware and performance... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle is a very good database, no doubt about that, but what is the need of the business? As hardware becomes less and less expensive the performance and stability of the database becomes less of a differentiator.
It is true the market for databases is growing, but it is not the high-end database market. Especially now that the definition of high-end is moved up by the availability of less expensive hardware. It is better to spend money on good hardware, backup and storage, rather than on the database license.
So why by an oracle database? Only if you need the really high end performance of your database, that outranks the affordable hardware, you'll need to look at products like oracle.
Right tool for the right job (Score:2)
Honestly It's all about ROI (Score:2, Insightful)
Many companies are done with the high ticket low support even on low end hardware such as a 4 processor 16 gigabyte SQL server. we are forced to Enterprise if we want to use
40K a processor? (Score:2)
Man thats expensive. Tho i hear Microsoft SQL2005 will be approaching the same ( silly ) cost levels.
One Example? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. Spare me the spin.
Isn't it also possible that the far cheaper closed source alternatives [sqlpass.org] are getting a little business [com.com] as well?
Oracle has always been pricey, but for a long time their DB features were hard to beat. Competitors, both closed and open, and finally getting to the point where they are on all levels with Oracle. [gartner.com]
No one really pays $40k/processor (Score:3, Informative)
$40k per processor is "list price". In reality, there are other options, such as Kunta Kinte [slashdot.org] points out.
Further, the kinds of companies that have huge investments in data centers (Oracle's primary target) negotiate volume contracts with Oracle. These contracts push that $40k sticker price way way way down. (Previous employer paid under $20k for a typical Oracle server license, unlimited users, no time limits.)
Considering that these companies really need their data, and have hundreds of applications (not all of them even cataloged) already written to use Oracle, this money is just basic business expense.
Prices listed wrong - some clarification (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure someone will point out another nitpick that it can't do, but the practical fact is that you can buy Standard Edition One for $5000/processor and get a fully functional database.
For the price-aware, you can even buy a 1, 2, or 3 year license for something like $2-3K.
And, no, Oracle isn't paying me to shill for them. I just work for a company that uses Oracle, and I hate to see the "Oracle costs $40,000" meme repeated here.
Tin Foil Hat Warning (Score:2, Interesting)
A little perspective on Oracle pricing... (Score:4, Interesting)
6 years ago, before the
Cisco networking gear. Sun servers. EMC disks. Oracle database.
So you paid a few mil for the network. A few mil for the servers. A few mil for the EMC disks. And a mil or two for Oracle at $10K/cpu (list)
NOW, Oracle says "we have 10g RAC, use us to replicate across CPUs. Don't pay $3M + $1M/year for Sun support... buy a rack of Linux servers (or blades) and hardware costs $250K versus $3M... support is nearly free because if a machine fails, just pull it from the rack, throw it in the trash, and swap a new one in there.'
And lo, they promoted "Linux is unbreakable" and charged an extra $10K/cpu for this service. Total end cost to customer is LESS than the old solution, and it's way FASTER.
Then, they have another initiative... use ASM and the low-cost storage initiative... use the database to span multiple disks, and handle all the replication/redundancy. Don't pay EMC $3M + $1M/year for Symmetrix support. Put it on lower cost gear (Clariion, Nexsan ATAboy, or *gasp* Apple Xserve RAID even). Spindle speeds are slower, so you buy 2x as many spindles and get the same IOPS. Hey, you save a couple million and pay more per CPU (say $40K/cpu list) for the whole shootin' match.
So your cost goes from (again, broad numbers)
$2M Cisco + $3M Sun + $3M EMC + $2M Oracle = $10M + maintenance
to:
$2M Cisco + $500K Dell + $500K Dell or Apple + $4M Oracle = $7M + maintenance
You save $3M a year! Of course Oracle gets a bigger cut. But it's "win-win."
Of course, there is the one subtlety here -- you are now using Oracle's RAC and ASM so you can use cheap hardware and storage. This stuff is totally proprietary, so if Oracle comes back come renewal time and doubles your per-CPU cost for the software, it's a helluva lot harder to rip it out than just porting stored-procedure code.
Even most other closed source are much cheaper (Score:2)
SQL Server 2005 enterprize is 26000 and Standard is 6000. Now I know it is not as good as Oracle for huge volume databases. But if a company wants a commercial DB Oracle really has priced themselves too high for most uses. I think DB2 and Sybase are cheaper as well but I don't know the exact pricing.
Oracle shafted me twice (Score:2)
They discontinued OraclePowerObjects just as I lauched a product based on it, and they discontinued OS/2 support just after I launched a product based on it.
Never again would I run mission critical stuff on proprietry software!
If I wanted to put my head in a lion's mouth, I would have worked in a circus!
Larry Ellison: You do not get customers by smacking people round the face with a wet fish!
Re:Larry Elliot... (Score:2)
An old adage says that yachts are for people who have so much money, they don't know what else to spend it on.
So I don't think it matters what side of the coin they are on, executives, in this case the end users executives, would rather spend their money on their own (albeit smaller) yachts than on an expensive closed source RDBMS. If they can get the same functionality and (some say lack of) support as Or
Re:Business is wising up (Score:2)
BTW, most of the biggest installations of MySQL I have seen, were all in companies active users of Oracle. Moving data from
Re:Business is wising up (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Business is wising up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)