Re: Fw: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

Comments interspersed. rkusenet wrote: >Daniel Morgan wrote: > > >>I think marketing, advertising, and hyperbole are irrelevant to a usenet group. >>A bunch of employees crowing about the fact that the company that pays their >>salary is better than the company that doesn't it not something I have to go to the >>internet to read. >> >> > >Why restrict to only those who are employees of company that makes a product. >In what way an Oracle user, specially DBAs, who uses Oracle for his living, >will be any less biased than an employee of Oracle Corp like Mark Townsend. >Of course the same applies to Informix DBAs too. > I expect Mark Townsend to be as objective as the IBM employees. Not one bit more. Not one bit less. Though he does seem a bit less paranoiac about it all but I assume that is personal trait rather than something related to his employer and their product. I make my living teaching two company's products and in my consulting life make income from all of them. Which I guess makes me a traitor to everyone that thinks software is a religion. >I've no doubt the people that are paid to do marketing >for Coca Cola can quote equally valid statistics about those >"Pepsi Users". Me? I just walk up to the machine, >put in my quarters and take whatever comes out. It's all brown fizzy water to me. > > > >the only difference is that coke/pepsi isn't about my job/career. Sure u and I >will be unbiased when it comes to coke vs pepsi or Honda vs Toyota, since it >is not about our job. But Oracle vs DB2/Informix is a different beast altogether. > >That's why I take ur statements defending Oracle's TCO with a handful of the needful. > >rk- > > There isn't a single person in any of these usenet groups that has any first hand knowledge of the TCO for any of these products. Oh we can all quote this study or that purchased by this company or that to support some proposition. But no two compies are buying the same hardware, operating system, network routers, databases, applications, employees, etc. so costs vary by definition. TCO is something invented by people in marketing and advertising departments just like benchmarks. It is a mechanism for selling products to those that don't or won't do their own math and testing. Assume that The Boeing Company, AT&T Wireless and Amazon.com buy the exact same product and put it on the exact same hardware. What are the chances that their MBAs will determine a similar TCO? Zero. Ask me how I know. -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:- > There isn't a single person in any of these usenet groups that has > any first hand knowledge of the TCO for any of these products. > Oh we can all quote this study or that purchased by this company or > that to support some proposition. > But no two compies are buying the same hardware, operating system, > network routers, databases, applications, employees, > etc. so costs vary by definition. TCO is something invented by people > in marketing and advertising departments just like > benchmarks. It is a mechanism for selling products to those that > don't or won't do their own math and testing. I have seen IDC report comparing the TCO of Oracle/SQLSERVER/DB2 and it shows Oracle to be the most expensive significantly. For my company, I have also seen quotations for the above three which shows Oracle to be the most expensive by a clear margin. Had it not been for NDA, I would have quoted the figure here. This is just the price of license and maintenance. Oracle's price may not be an issue to big corporations, not for small companies. rk-

Daniel Morgan wrote: > he does seem a bit less paranoiac about it all but I assume that is > personal trait rather than something related to his remembering to take his medication ? Yours, Comfortably Numb

rkusenet wrote: >"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:- > > > >>There isn't a single person in any of these usenet groups that has >>any first hand knowledge of the TCO for any of these products. >>Oh we can all quote this study or that purchased by this company or >>that to support some proposition. >>But no two compies are buying the same hardware, operating system, >>network routers, databases, applications, employees, >>etc. so costs vary by definition. TCO is something invented by people >>in marketing and advertising departments just like >>benchmarks. It is a mechanism for selling products to those that >>don't or won't do their own math and testing. >> >> > >I have seen IDC report comparing the TCO of Oracle/SQLSERVER/DB2 and it >shows Oracle to be the most expensive significantly. > Please note above where I said: "Oh we can all quote this study or that purchased by this company or that to support some proposition." What was the point you were trying to make in reaffirming my statement? >For my company, I have also seen quotations for the above three which shows >Oracle to be the most expensive by a clear margin. Had it not been for NDA, >I would have quoted the figure here. This is just the price of license >and maintenance. > >Oracle's price may not be an issue to big corporations, not for small >companies. > >rk- > > Go ahead and list the options Oracle quoted on, for example Enterprise Edition or Standard Edition and the items IBM quoted on, for example Tivoli, C Compiler, and give us the dollars as calculated for a 5 year period including hardware, operating system, application software, DBAs and developers, third-party tools such as report writers, and support and maintenance contracts. You don't have to give exact dollars. Just get us to the nearest $10,000 Canadian. No one knows where you work or what companies numbers you might be quoting so please don't hide behind an NDA. If you've got the goods ... post them. -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:- >Please note above where I said: >"Oh we can all quote this study or that purchased by this >company or that to support some proposition." >What was the point you were trying to make in reaffirming my statement? What was ur statement, eh? That no study about TCO is complete. I don't buy it. The report by IDC wasn't even declaring a clear winner between SQLServer and DB2. All it showed was that Oracle was significantly expensive. >For my company, I have also seen quotations for the above three which shows >Go ahead and list the options Oracle quoted on, for example Enterprise Edition >or Standard Edition and the items IBM quoted on, for example Tivoli, C Compiler, >and give us the dollars as calculated for a 5 year period including hardware, >operating system, application software, DBAs and developers, third-party tools >such as report writers, and support and maintenance contracts. You don't have to >give exact dollars. Just get us to the nearest $10,000 Canadian. >No one knows where you work or what companies numbers you might be quoting >so please don't hide behind an NDA. >If you've got the goods ... post them. First of all many in this forum know where I work and it isn't difficult to trace the IP address since I am posting this from my work place. So I am not going to write something in direct violation of NDA. To answer to ur question:- 1. It was Oracle's EE. The Standard Edition of Oracle is licensed to work for only boxes with 2 or less CPUs, a no-no in our case. 2. We asked for only DB price since that's what we need. So there was no reason for IBM to quote Tivoli. 3. What is this C compiler? There is no necessity to have C compiler on production box to support stored procedures. You can compile it on your development box and just copy the object files to production. We at present do it for Informix too for datablades. Our development,QA and Production boxes are all same OS based and we deploy C databladed on production where there isn't any compiler. 4. The cost quoted by IBM and O was for same hardware and OS which we mentioned to them, because we plan to retain the existing hardware. MS of course quoted for Windoz based system. 5. Application S/W : N/A in our case. 6. DBAs and developers: This is interesting. Are you trying to suggest that it costs more to hire DB2UDB developers and DBAs. Our developers are all database agnostic. They are C++ and Java experts and talk to DBs using JDBC/ODBC. Our DBAs (including me) support both Informix and SQL Server. 7. third-party tools such as report writers: N/A 8. Support and Maintenance contracts: You may be interested to know that Oracle's maintenance price was significantly higher than DB2 and MSSQL. Their sales rep was stressing that unlike DB2/MSSQL, Oracle's license is not restricted to a single version. So if 9.1 is purchased and maintenance fees is paid regularly, automatic upgrade to 10.x, 11.x is assured for no extra cost. Yeah so?? They are already milking heavily on maintenance. Bottomline: For us, Oracle's TCO was way more than DB2 and MSSQLServer. Before u start ur familiar defence of Oracle, re-read the keyword. It is 'for us'. rk-