RE: Why is Oracle unaffordable?
- From: "Blanchard, William G" <William.Blanchard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <passionate_programmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:17:55 -0600
"Until and unless Oracle comes out with a GUI to manage administration
easily..."
OEM? Grid Control?
WGB
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of RP Khare
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 6:33 AM
To: dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Why is Oracle unaffordable?
It is neither the question of cheap developers or expensive DBAs, the
question was about the cost and user-friendliness of the product. With
almost same features, one is costing much more than the other. In my
original post I wrote how BerkelyDB's licensing is fr more expensive
than similar products (don't include M$ if you are irritated with it).
Until and unless Oracle comes out with a GUI to manage administration
easily, people will praise the black screen because there is no option.
===========================================================
> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:59:57 +1100
> From: dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Why is Oracle unaffordable?
>
> Kellyn Pedersen wrote,on my timestamp of 9/11/2010 6:55 AM:
>
> > performing poorly. When someone comes to me with the blanket
statement, "SQL
> > Server and MySQL just can't stand up to 24X7 database requirements"
I laugh.
> > It's not the database platform that failed the requirements, it's
the person
> > that installed it and the database design.
>
> Invariably, one of the "cheap developers" that seem to be the
alternative to
> "expensive dbas" nowadays... Same problem here.
> First two years where I am now, we saved >$2M in M$ fees by simply
combining and
> consolidating the myriad "databases" - one server for each!!! -
installed all
> around the place, into three major production servers.
> Now we spend <$200K in M$ fees.
> Same was done for Oracle, down to three major production servers from
>10.
> Regardless of what M$ and Oracle might think of that loss of revenue,
I think
> that was not a bad return for investing in an "expensive dba".
Particularly
> since the salary for said dba is much, much less than the licence
fees...
>
>
> > when I say this- I have created SQL Server environments with web
properties that
> > can out perform Oracle for the same purpose and function. Before I
was brought
> > in to tune them, they ran like dogs though. They weren't properly
designed,
> > properly configured, tuned or installed. This takes time and
expertise and
> > Microsoft has made it way to easy for just anyone to create a SQL
Server db.
>
> Bingo.
>
>
> > I truly believe this is because it was built by someone who is a
DBA, who knows
> > his/her craft. Databases shouldn't be easy to install and configure
for anyone.
>
> Yeah, and I'll bet no one properly costed that "expensive" dba against
the prior
> waste in licensing. In another year or so when all is forgotten about
the
> previous bad performance, they'll be after said "expensive dba" like a
ton of
> bricks. Aided of course by every marketing department and sales group
out there
> willing to "prove" they can place a "much cheaper" dba.
>
> And the madness goes on...
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> in hazy Sydney, Australia
> dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
_____________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all
copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and
(iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any
message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons
other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_____________
Other related posts:
