Re: Informix Licensing and Pricing Schemes.
rkusenet wrote: [snip] > Also please bear in the mind, the original poster was talking > about Informix SE, which does not even have a concept of > DBA. It is a very simple product with very limited features. > To recommend Oracle to such a user is criminal to > say the least. SE was chosen originally for just that reason. Very low maintenance and reliable. It does not require having an IT staff to keep it running. I still don't believe that if I'm sitting at a computer and have two database connections open at once that I'm required to have two runtime licenses of both RDS and SE. It is a totaly absurd concept in licensing.
BigVinnie said: > > rkusenet wrote: > [snip] >> Also please bear in the mind, the original poster was talking >> about Informix SE, which does not even have a concept of >> DBA. It is a very simple product with very limited features. >> To recommend Oracle to such a user is criminal to >> say the least. > > SE was chosen originally for just that reason. Very low maintenance and > reliable. It does not require having an IT staff to keep it running. > > I still don't believe that if I'm sitting at a computer and have two > database connections open at once that I'm required to have two runtime > licenses of both RDS and SE. It is a totaly absurd concept in licensing. Sadly, with my limited recent experience of licensing issues, that is exactly how it works. (Or not.) -- 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
BigVinnie <BigVinnieRocks@gwhizmail.com> schrieb: >I still don't believe that if I'm sitting at a computer and have two >database connections open at once that I'm required to have two runtime >licenses of both RDS and SE. It is a totaly absurd concept in licensing. Why do you think this is absurd? This is exactly the way it is supposed to work. Think in "concurrent users". If you have n users working concurrently, you need n runtime licenses. Notice the word "concurrent". Lets say you have 10 employees working with your software, but only 5 out of these 10 ever use it at the same time (i.e. have the program running or a connection open), then you need 5 runtime licenses. Regards, Richard