Yes, and if politicians weren't all arts or PPE graduates they'd have
recognised this needs regulating like European rules on car maintenance.
For a few years bus it's been illegal for a car manufacturer selling in
Europe to insist you get your car serviced on their premises as a condition
of the warranty.
So customers have choice on price, convenience and their own evaluation of
quality, to everyone's benefit - except perhaps the former "monopoly"
providers of the service.
Not many Oracle customers are consumers, but I would have thought very few
have the muscle to push back on what can be a poor service from Oracle
Support. However once you have bought Oracle if you want ongoing software
updates you have to deal with a monopoly support organisation.
I admit I can't think of a mechanism that would allow a separate software
maintenance charge to be kept reasonable while forcing support
organisations within software manufacturers to compete with third party
providers on service quality, price or other measures. But I am sure
smarter people than me could figure that out.
Unfortunately few of those people end up in our Parliaments.
Regards
JT
On Wed, 11 May 2016 at 09:43 Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hans asks the pertinent question. What is it that you are considering?
Most commonly people refer to the annual support *and maintenance*
contracts as "support". It's the maintenance part that gives you access to
patches etc.
On 11 May 2016 05:46, "Hans Forbrich" <fuzzy.graybeard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Please define 'support'.
/Hans
On 10/05/2016 10:20 PM, Oracle List (Redacted sender sharmakdeep_oracle
for DMARC) wrote:
Any experiences (good/bad) going from Oracle support to a 3rd party--
support for your RDBMS's ?
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
