Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Oracle Corporation (ORCL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (17268)	6/19/2002 4:28:21 PM
From: Michael Olin	Respond to of 19080

Good, I like the pricing, this will get all the old c/s model custom apps onto the new architecture. The pricing doesn't have to do it. Oracle does not support client-server deployment of Oracle Forms/Reports with the newest version of the product. The desupport notice has already been sent out for the current client/server version. I think that Oracle will pull the plug on the current versions in 2004 (2005 if you pay extra for post-mortem support). Hmmm is the "named user" model a can of worms- I missed the debate, but I have to ask- how is a named user relevant with an application server? You probably have one (or very few) named users. Same thing with the Ora Apps, not many actual users. There's an application user level is one step removed from the database level, lots of those but thats not an oracle "named user". A "named user" is not relevant in an application server environment (unless you are using stateful transactions with database user validation), "concurrent user" is. I think that the minimum per-processor licensing reflects that to some degree. The "named user" debate arose when Oracle informed some customers who were running data warehouses that they needed to increase the number of users on their license. It seems that these customers were running an enterprise-wide data warehouse using batch jobs that all ran as the same "named user". So we can run our entire business with a license for one named user, right? I'm not exactly sure of what specifically Oracle did, but I would guess that they said something along the lines of, "when you renew your support agreement next year, we're basing it on x users, which is a more accurate measure of how you are using the product than the current single named user". An analyst with Meta Group told these folks they should tell Oracle to stick it and fight it out in court. I posted here that the data warehouse folks should quit complaining, be happy that they got away with it for so long, and pay up. -Michael