Re: Informix Licensing and Pricing Schemes.

rkusenet wrote: > "DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote in message news:1137262315.862221@jetspin.drizzle.com... > >>Feel free to contact me ... beating $2K/user shouldn't be terribly difficult ... of course I'd >>be taking you up on converting the entire >>system. > > > and then pay thru your nose for DBAs and consultants just to > keep the system up and running. The job market for the O > dbas is a good indicator of that. > > You might end up saving a little in capital expense, but end > up paying far more in operating expense. I wasn't going to suggest Oracle 6 or 7. But if engaging to FUD makes you feel better by all means go for it. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan said: > > But if engaging to FUD makes you feel better by all means go for it. Yeah, Dan, whatever. Many of my clients have Oracle somewhere in their organisations, along with SQL Server and DB2 and Informix. They unanimously report that Oracle is more work than any of their other servers, irrespective of whether they are running one application on it or dozens. Are you saying that every Oracle user I have ever seen is a stupid twat, or that Oracle can't teach people how to use their products? Or something else, and if so, what? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche did i mention i like nulls? heck, i even go so far as to say that all columns in a table except the primary key could/should be nullable. this has certain advantages, for example, if you need to insert a child record and you don't have a parent row for it, just do an insert into the parent table with the primary key value (everything else null), and voila, relational integrity is preserved. but this is, admittedly, a bit controversial among modellers. --r937, dbforums.com

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Or something > else, and if so, what? Typically the Oracle systems tend to be more mission critical, with higher SLAs, than the systems running on Informix, DB2 LUW or SQLServer. As such, they can require more care and feeding.

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan said: > >>But if engaging to FUD makes you feel better by all means go for it. > > > Yeah, Dan, whatever. Many of my clients have Oracle somewhere in their > organisations, along with SQL Server and DB2 and Informix. They > unanimously report that Oracle is more work than any of their other > servers, irrespective of whether they are running one application on it or > dozens. And I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of those DBAs wouldn't make it past a job interview today. They were likely brilliant with Oracle 6 and 7, perhaps competent with 8i, but likely haven't invested a day of their time in learning DBCONSOLE, GRID CONTROL, RMAN, and all of the other technology improvements that make Oracle, as it is currently, easy to manage. Go back far enough in the history of any software product and you can find a wart. Trying to claim that it is will be a wart forever is FUD. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

Mark Townsend said: > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> Or something >> else, and if so, what? > > Typically the Oracle systems tend to be more mission critical, with > higher SLAs, than the systems running on Informix, DB2 LUW or SQLServer. > As such, they can require more care and feeding. Nice try, Mark. Now stop smoking crack and try again. :op -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche did i mention i like nulls? heck, i even go so far as to say that all columns in a table except the primary key could/should be nullable. this has certain advantages, for example, if you need to insert a child record and you don't have a parent row for it, just do an insert into the parent table with the primary key value (everything else null), and voila, relational integrity is preserved. but this is, admittedly, a bit controversial among modellers. --r937, dbforums.com

DA Morgan said: > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> DA Morgan said: >> >>>But if engaging to FUD makes you feel better by all means go for it. >> >> Yeah, Dan, whatever. Many of my clients have Oracle somewhere in their >> organisations, along with SQL Server and DB2 and Informix. They >> unanimously report that Oracle is more work than any of their other >> servers, irrespective of whether they are running one application on it >> or >> dozens. > > And I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of those DBAs > wouldn't make it past a job interview today. They were likely brilliant > with Oracle 6 and 7, perhaps competent with 8i, but likely haven't > invested a day of their time in learning DBCONSOLE, GRID CONTROL, RMAN, > and all of the other technology improvements that make Oracle, as it > is currently, easy to manage. What, ALL of them? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche did i mention i like nulls? heck, i even go so far as to say that all columns in a table except the primary key could/should be nullable. this has certain advantages, for example, if you need to insert a child record and you don't have a parent row for it, just do an insert into the parent table with the primary key value (everything else null), and voila, relational integrity is preserved. but this is, admittedly, a bit controversial among modellers. --r937, dbforums.com

Mark Townsend wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> Or something >> else, and if so, what? > > > Typically the Oracle systems tend to be more mission critical, with > higher SLAs, than the systems running on Informix, DB2 LUW or SQLServer. > As such, they can require more care and feeding. Do you have statistics supporting this or are you making this up? Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development DB2 UDB for Linux, Unix, Windows IBM Toronto Lab

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan said: > >>Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> >>>DA Morgan said: >>> >>> >>>>But if engaging to FUD makes you feel better by all means go for it. >>> >>>Yeah, Dan, whatever. Many of my clients have Oracle somewhere in their >>>organisations, along with SQL Server and DB2 and Informix. They >>>unanimously report that Oracle is more work than any of their other >>>servers, irrespective of whether they are running one application on it >>>or >>>dozens. >> >>And I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of those DBAs >>wouldn't make it past a job interview today. They were likely brilliant >>with Oracle 6 and 7, perhaps competent with 8i, but likely haven't >>invested a day of their time in learning DBCONSOLE, GRID CONTROL, RMAN, >>and all of the other technology improvements that make Oracle, as it >>is currently, easy to manage. > > > What, ALL of them? > Interesting point. Personally I find any software that requires me to go out and actively learn its tools, is hard to use (I'm not aiming at any vendor here btw. I have peeves with Notes just the same as with Eclipse or DB2). Unfortunately these DBA's who have taken all these courses (many posters say courses are useless in principle IIRC) or have the years of experience are few and far between. If in the experince of the user software is hard to use, it's hard to use. Whether that's the fault of teh software developer or the learning services organization isn't really the point for the TCO. One of the issues of modern software is feature madness and that only gets worse with every new release. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development DB2 UDB for Linux, Unix, Windows IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau wrote: > Mark Townsend wrote: > >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> >>> Or something >>> else, and if so, what? >> >> >> >> Typically the Oracle systems tend to be more mission critical, with >> higher SLAs, than the systems running on Informix, DB2 LUW or >> SQLServer. As such, they can require more care and feeding. > > Do you have statistics supporting this or are you making this up? > Not statistics - something better. A number of database vendors, IBM included, have over the years published surveys and/or customer stories where they have attempted to show that Oracle systems had more DBA's assigned to them, with the implication that the Oracle database was therefore more difficult to manage. In every case, where the customer(s) was identifiable, either from the survey list, or directly, we went and spoke to the customers. We always found that the systems being compared where completely different in mission criticality, size of the database, or HA requirements. These differences are then documented and shared with the Oracle sales force, as they work very well as proof points.

Mark Townsend wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: > >> Mark Townsend wrote: >> >>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> >>>> Or something >>>> else, and if so, what? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Typically the Oracle systems tend to be more mission critical, with >>> higher SLAs, than the systems running on Informix, DB2 LUW or >>> SQLServer. As such, they can require more care and feeding. >> Had a good laugh on that one. Depending on the application a company may be forced to use Oracle even though they have no real interest in doing so, other than the application requires Oracle. It's hard to imagine a company intentionally inflicting itself with Oracle unless they have no other choice. Never do you hear about management getting "happy" about buying Oracle, it is usually purchased as a requirement for an application. Any management that has to make that decision knows they are not headed towards lower cost, that isn't reality. They are fully aware it will be big cost all the way around. >> >> Do you have statistics supporting this or are you making this up? >> > > Not statistics - something better. Here it comes, get ready. > A number of database vendors, IBM > included, have over the years published surveys and/or customer stories > where they have attempted to show that Oracle systems had more DBA's > assigned to them, with the implication that the Oracle database was > therefore more difficult to manage. > What would be the motivation? Why would anyone want to imply that Oracle is "more difficult to manage" than another product? Why would anyone want to say something that is untrue? > In every case, where the customer(s) was identifiable, either from the > survey list, or directly, we went and spoke to the customers. > > We always found that the systems being compared where completely were completely - ( not 'where completely' ) > different in mission criticality, size of the database, or HA requirements. > > These differences are then documented and shared with the Oracle sales > force, as they work very well as proof points. Certainly must be true because you said so. Interesting that this hasn't been published or shown to the public, and even more interesting that it has not been shared by an Oracle DBA but by an Oracle salesperson. You would think Oracle would want to share this to bolster their position.

> > Certainly must be true because you said so. Interesting that this hasn't > been published or shown to the public, and even more interesting that it > has not been shared by an Oracle DBA but by an Oracle salesperson. You > would think Oracle would want to share this to bolster their position. > Information on Oracle manageability, including competitive studies, can be found at http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/manageability/database/index.html

Mark Townsend wrote: > > Information on Oracle manageability, including competitive studies, can > be found at > http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/manageability/database/index.html Good to see you don't take yourself so serious!

Mark Townsend said: > > Serge Rielau wrote: >> Mark Townsend wrote: >> >>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> >>>> Or something >>>> else, and if so, what? >>> >>> >>> >>> Typically the Oracle systems tend to be more mission critical, with >>> higher SLAs, than the systems running on Informix, DB2 LUW or >>> SQLServer. As such, they can require more care and feeding. >> >> Do you have statistics supporting this or are you making this up? >> > > Not statistics - something better. A number of database vendors, IBM > included, have over the years published surveys and/or customer stories > where they have attempted to show that Oracle systems had more DBA's > assigned to them, with the implication that the Oracle database was > therefore more difficult to manage. > > In every case, where the customer(s) was identifiable, either from the > survey list, or directly, we went and spoke to the customers. > > We always found that the systems being compared where completely > different in mission criticality, size of the database, or HA > requirements. > > These differences are then documented and shared with the Oracle sales > force, as they work very well as proof points. Funnily enough, most of my customers have Oracle behind Oracle Financials. Now, while your financials are critical, spending time managing the database behind a packaged application doesn't seem to be the most sensible use of time, when all the customer-facing, business generating systems are on other databases (mostly IDS, of course!) and require less nannying and babysitting. And before Daniel starts whining again, most of my customers actually employ separate teams of Oracle DBA's, not exclusively cross-training existing DBA's. However, invariably, the size of the Oracle DBA team grows as existing DBA's are co-opted into the management of Oracle as well as their existing jobs. Why have I never, ever heard of the reverse happening, where the Oracle DBA's get roped into managing the existing DB2, SQL Server or IDS systems? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche did i mention i like nulls? heck, i even go so far as to say that all columns in a table except the primary key could/should be nullable. this has certain advantages, for example, if you need to insert a child record and you don't have a parent row for it, just do an insert into the parent table with the primary key value (everything else null), and voila, relational integrity is preserved. but this is, admittedly, a bit controversial among modellers. --r937, dbforums.com

No, a bloke down the pub told him.

"Simon" <si_g_palmer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1137401085.784067.210300@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > No, a bloke down the pub told him. These can still sometimes be hilarious without the cut-and-paste context of the original, can't they?

> No, a bloke down the pub told him. These can still sometimes be hilarious without the cut-and-paste context of the original, can't they? No. Fuck off.

Serge Rielau wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> DA Morgan said: >> >>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> >>>> DA Morgan said: >>>> >>>> >>>>> But if engaging to FUD makes you feel better by all means go for it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, Dan, whatever. Many of my clients have Oracle somewhere in their >>>> organisations, along with SQL Server and DB2 and Informix. They >>>> unanimously report that Oracle is more work than any of their other >>>> servers, irrespective of whether they are running one application on it >>>> or >>>> dozens. >>> >>> >>> And I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of those DBAs >>> wouldn't make it past a job interview today. They were likely brilliant >>> with Oracle 6 and 7, perhaps competent with 8i, but likely haven't >>> invested a day of their time in learning DBCONSOLE, GRID CONTROL, RMAN, >>> and all of the other technology improvements that make Oracle, as it >>> is currently, easy to manage. >> >> >> >> What, ALL of them? >> > Interesting point. Personally I find any software that requires me to go > out and actively learn its tools, is hard to use > > Cheers > Serge So you prefer Windows over Unix? I doubt it! You prefer notepad over vi? I doubt it! You prefer CTRL-F to grep? I doubt it! Learning the tools I mentioned is a one day class. Unfortunately too many people that have the title DBA after their name are managing database resources in 2006 exactly the same way, with with roughly the same shell scripts, as they managed them in 1986. Does it work? Absolutely! Is it efficient? Hardly! That was my point. In any other "profession" be it physician, lawyer, pharmacist, accountant, engineer, etc. continuing education is not just an expectation it is a requirement. Our is the only profession I can think of paying 6-figure salaries in which having earned the title DBA many feel that are entitled to just coast for the balance of their career. And unfortunately many do. And thus when I hear about Oracle DBAs that are still doing things the way they did 20 years ago I am not at all surprised. But just because they do it the hard way doesn't mean that is the only option or best practice. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)