petition
Niall Litchfield
I have recently started a petition at
http://www.petitiononline.com/oraman/petition.html calling on Oracle
Corporation to allow all customers, not just enterprise edition
customers to license the various management packs that are available
with 10g at the same cost. My rationale is set out in my blog entry
about this at
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com/2005/07/10g-manageability.html
Please take a look and if you agree with the petition sign it. I'm
grateful for those who already have, especially if you are yourselves
EE customers. If there is a sufficient number of people that feel the
same way I will be drawing this to Oracle's attention. If there isn't
I'll know that its just a pet peeve.
Follow-ups should be directed either at me or in the comments on my
blog entry. They don't seem appropriate in this forum.
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
Niall Litchfield
DA Morgan
Just signed and I fully support both THE initiative and YOUR initiative.
Oracle keeping some features separate as part of the EE license makes
sense. But I can see no possible rationale under which anyone would step
up to the delta between SE and EE just to get the Diagnostic Pack. And
it would seem to me in Oracle best financial interest to take a
customer's money if they wish to purchase one or more of the packs.
Willie ... how about a sliding incremental scale whereby someone could
start with an SE license and by purchasing add-ons, partitioning,
Diagnostic Pack, etc. work their way up to an EE license when they have
purhase 80% or so of the EE features?
More revenue for Oracle and more happy productive customers. Not
everyone can afford EE licenses in one swallow. But many might be able
to get there over a period of time as they purchase add-on features.
Once again Niall ... thanks.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damo...@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Mark Townsend
decisions, and while the petition is useful as part of the decision
making process, the dialog is typically more useful.
Remember that SE and SE1 are targetted at small enterprises or
departmental deployments, running non-mission critical applications, on
small machines, typically with less than a couple of 100 of GB of data,
typically with a small number of users (perhaps no more than 100
concurrent), and where we do not believe there is a full time DBA, if
any at all. Anybody outside of these simple criteria we think is
actually running EE (and we have this user base surveys that seem to
back this categorization up)
As such, the full functionality of Diag and Tuning pack seemed to be
overkill given this target environment.
Now either we have the target wrong, in which case some demographics
about what people are actually doing with SE or SE1 would help, or the
full functionality of the packs are required for even very simple
environments, in which case we have the product wrong, or something
in-between is required, in which case I would love to hear what people
think should be in the in-between.
Comments ?
HansF
writing:
>
>
> As such, the full functionality of Diag and Tuning pack seemed to be
> overkill given this target environment.
The target is Small Business, who may not be able to afford EE - but CAN
often afford competent consultants who know how to use the tools in
question.
I'll be signing as well.
--
Hans Forbrich
Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com
*** I no longer assist with top-posted newsgroup queries ***
DA Morgan
> As such, the full functionality of Diag and Tuning pack seemed to be
> overkill given this target environment.
Granted. But still you should be taking our money in exchange for the
functionality. ;-)
We wouldn't want the ducks to lose their neatly manicured lawns.
> Now either we have the target wrong, in which case some demographics
> about what people are actually doing with SE or SE1 would help, or the
> full functionality of the packs are required for even very simple
> environments, in which case we have the product wrong, or something
> in-between is required, in which case I would love to hear what people
> think should be in the in-between.
>
> Comments ?
I think your demographics are wrong.
I can't speak to SE1 because my contacts don't consider it. But for
those organizations I work with the decision to go SE or EE almost
entirely comes down to "Do we need partitioning?"
If they don't need partitioning they buy SE and save money. If they
need it they buy EE. RAC customers, by and large, go EE even when
they are only building a 2-3 node cluster.
My recommendation, and I know it covers more turf than just the
petition, would be as follows:
1. Rename SE1 to SE
2. Rename SE to EE
3. Rename EE to something new to keep Microsoft from playing word games
with their comparison of their Enterprise Edition to Oracle's even
though it barely has the functionality of SE1.
4. Don't forget App Server customers
5. Then make OEM/GRID and the packs separate products that anyone can
purchase with any Oracle product but include them in the high-end
offering.
I consider the full functionality of the packs essential for any work.
Surely one has as much need for ADDM with SE as with EE. Take a look
at the Sev 1 TAR I have open. The problem would be have been nearly
impossible to diagnose without the Grid Control. In fact until we
applied the tool to our benchmarking we didn't even know the issue
existed. Ignorance my have been bliss. But a fix is even better.
Joel Garry
HansF wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:20:06 -0700, Mark Townsend interested us by
> writing:
>
> >
> >
> > As such, the full functionality of Diag and Tuning pack seemed to be
> > overkill given this target environment.
Don't agree with that, given 50-100G 100-user no-DBA environments with
CBO. Agree with Daniel's partitioning observation. Live in fear that
customers will make the "no-partitioning-needed-now" decision while
upgrading.
>
> The target is Small Business, who may not be able to afford EE - but CAN
> often afford competent consultants who know how to use the tools in
> question.
>
So that would imply selling portable instance-independent toolsets?
I've found it's tough to convince a smaller business to buy something
just for me to use, even with free download trials. I can't afford
corporate-priced things myself. I don't want to have to say "I won't
work for you unless you buy EE... or Quest." I don't want to have to
play games to get around silly licensing decisions.
I think a business case could be made of the form "if we give away
these tools for free [well, included in any license], that would _help
sell the apps_ without a big hit on revenue." Trying to make every
little thing a profit center is not strategically sound.
"Small additional cost" is, of course, relative.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.faqs.org/qa/rfcc-1522.html
HansF
>
> So that would imply selling portable instance-independent toolsets?
Not really. (Although that could be useful)
The argument is: if a modestly priced utility can be used to reduce the
duration (and therefore cost) of consulting, many of my customers would
be willing to consider that. Especially for a utility that cacn be used
by 'any' consultant thereafter.
DA Morgan
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:17:26 -0700, Joel Garry interested us by writing:
>
>
>>So that would imply selling portable instance-independent toolsets?
>
>
> Not really. (Although that could be useful)
>
> The argument is: if a modestly priced utility can be used to reduce the
> duration (and therefore cost) of consulting, many of my customers would
> be willing to consider that. Especially for a utility that cacn be used
> by 'any' consultant thereafter.
Also worthy of consideration by Oracle is the possibility that
consultants might purchase the tools and wish to apply them to a
specific engagement, use them, remove them, and move on. Right now,
most likely, anyone doing this isn't paying Oracle a dime because
the tools are only installed for a few days to a few weeks.
Joel Garry
HansF wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:17:26 -0700, Joel Garry interested us by writing:
>
> >
> > So that would imply selling portable instance-independent toolsets?
>
> Not really. (Although that could be useful)
>
> The argument is: if a modestly priced utility can be used to reduce the
> duration (and therefore cost) of consulting, many of my customers would
> be willing to consider that. Especially for a utility that cacn be used
> by 'any' consultant thereafter.
I've seen some utilities that do things like say "you need to
defragment these tables." Hmmmm... sell the reduced duration concept,
but bill a lot of unnecessary hours... nawww.
Not to mention those same utilities being marketeered to reduce dba
costs...
This is AFU. Include reliable instrumentation in the product! You
don't buy a Lexus without a speedometer. Or a Toyota.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050721-1127-bn21fraud.html