Re: Database market share 2004
In message <1117509502.933106.137440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> writes >rkusenet wrote: >> respectively. However, there was no clear winner in market share >>overall. Because the >> difference between RDBMS revenue for IBM and Oracle was less than $30 >>million, it is >> statistically too close to declare a winner, according to the report, >>titled "No Clear >> Winner in Overall RDBMS Market Share Race." > >Shewt! Brace yourselves, here comes another IBM aquisition! >If all else fails, BUY market share. Who will it be this time? >Teradata? > > >> "Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the >>RAC option," the Gartner >> report states. > >They gotta be joking... > You *can't* buy Oracle without the RAC option. Well you can, if you buy Standard Edition One, but Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition both include RAC. I don't know how much market share SEO[1] has, but you could say that almost all Oracle licenses include RAC. > 1: Probably negligible in the type of company Gartner is addressing. -- Jim Smith Because of their persistent net abuse, I ignore mail from these domains (among others) .yahoo.com .hotmail.com .kr .cn .tw For an explanation see <http://www.jimsmith.demon.co.uk/spam>;
Jim Smith wrote: > > You *can't* buy Oracle without the RAC option. Well you can, if you buy > Standard Edition One, but Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition both > include RAC. I don't know how much market share SEO[1] has, but you > could say that almost all Oracle licenses include RAC. Care to rephrase that? Ain't making much sense right now... :) If it was the case that one "couldn't buy Oracle without RAC", then why point out that "few users are buying Oracle without RAC for Linux"? > 1: Probably negligible in the type of company Gartner is addressing. Ah, but they put NO qualifiers in their "addressing", do they? Therefore, others might conclude it's the "state of the overall market". When it isn't, by any stretch of the imagination.
Noons wrote: > Jim Smith wrote: > >>You *can't* buy Oracle without the RAC option. Well you can, if you buy >>Standard Edition One, but Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition both >>include RAC. I don't know how much market share SEO[1] has, but you >>could say that almost all Oracle licenses include RAC. > > > Care to rephrase that? Ain't making much sense > right now... :) > > If it was the case that one "couldn't buy Oracle without RAC", > then why point out that "few users are buying Oracle without > RAC for Linux"? > Microsoft used to do this with Microsoft Office, I believe. They used to package SQL Server with Microsoft Office (maybe they still do) and then whenever an Office license was sold, it automatically resulted in a SQL Server sales whether it was being used or not. > >>1: Probably negligible in the type of company Gartner is addressing. > > > Ah, but they put NO qualifiers in their "addressing", > do they? Therefore, others might conclude it's the > "state of the overall market". When it isn't, by any stretch > of the imagination. > Larry
Jim Smith wrote: >>> "Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the >>> RAC option," the Gartner >>> report states. >> >> They gotta be joking... > > You *can't* buy Oracle without the RAC option. Well you can, if you buy > Standard Edition One, but Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition both > include RAC. Oh how I wish your statement was true: Alas it is not. SE includes a very limited RAC license and only with 10g. EE has never and does not now include RAC. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)