The penny hasn't dropped yet...
Noons
Dear My Oracle Support Customer
Service Request #3-1506509011 does not have Configuration Id, it is
recommended that you provide one to receive a faster solution.
Thank you,
The My Oracle Support Team
Amazing! Now, not only do we have to pay through our noses for ANY
support, if we don't install a viral tool that sends unknown
information to Oracle, we get low-speed solutions as well?
When are these geniuses gonna fathom that only an ignorant,
irresponsible moron would accept to install a "configuration tool"
that sends undisclosed information to Oracle, including such pearls as
the internal MAC address of network cards?
Apparently, it hasn't dropped yet with these geniuses that NO ONE in
their right state of mind will accept to install such a tool.
And for the silly groupies who might feel inclined to reply they have
been using it for ages without problems: I don't give a toss what you
might do, you are not me and you don't run under the same conditions I
have to run my security. Capice?
Hemant K Chitale
Maybe there should be a poll on this.
I don't like OCM and I don't use it. I rarely upload RDA output files
either.
Hemant K Chitale
Noons
> Maybe there should be a poll on this.
> I don't like OCM and I don't use it. I rarely upload RDA output files
> either.
Ah, but you see: you must be one of those dinossaur dbas who actually act
responsibly and professionaly to upkeep the security of your site.
As opposed to the "dba2.0" kind who click on everything in sight with wild
abandon, while making faces at the camera...
Sybrand Bakker
wrote:
>As opposed to the "dba2.0" kind who click on everything in sight with wild
>abandon, while making faces at the camera...
If only they would do that in their webcam, so we can groan back when
they are asking their RTFM questions, indicating they are as stupid as
Oracle support personnel and Oracle developers.
---
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA
vsevolod afanassiev
this case Oracle Support needs init.ora parametes
or server patch level or similar then this information should be
provided in one form or another.
For example if I ask Oracle Support to investigate ORA-04031 errors
then I would provide them with
- init.ora parameters
- contents of V$SGASTAT, STATS$SGASTAT
- if this is 10g and ASMM is enabled then information from the views
that show how memory was resized
- ORA-04031 trace files
- alert.log
So may be they are asking for information that should have been
provided from the beginning
However if they are using lack of OCM to justify a delay in the
investigation when all necessary information has been provided then it
is bad.
Noons
> I think it depends on the specifics of the case. If to investigate
> this case Oracle Support needs init.ora parametes
> or server patch level or similar then this information should be
> provided in one form or another.
Good. All they have to do is ask for it, if/when needed. Period.
> For example if I ask Oracle Support to investigate ORA-04031 errors
> then I would provide them with
> - init.ora parameters
> - contents of V$SGASTAT, STATS$SGASTAT
> - if this is 10g and ASMM is enabled then information from the views
> that show how memory was resized
> - ORA-04031 trace files
> - alert.log
Exactly.
> So may be they are asking for information that should have been
> provided from the beginning
Actually, they asked for nothing: they just sent that email as an auto follow-up
to opening the SR, long before anyone had a look at it.
> However if they are using lack of OCM to justify a delay in the
> investigation when all necessary information has been provided then it
> is bad.
ORA-600 on a select from subpartitioned table, trace dump of simplified
statement provided. What possible need would there be to know the MAC address
of the network card in that system?
Mladen Gogala
> Amazing! Now, not only do we have to pay through our noses for ANY
> support, if we don't install a viral tool that sends unknown information
> to Oracle, we get low-speed solutions as well?
They're really pushing it hard! They want to be able to charge for
licenses automatically. The results are really beginning to show, on the
OUG meetings first. The NYOUG in the last October was a disaster, pure
marketing pitch, mostly by Oracle and a few satellites. None of my
colleagues was there, it was a loss of time. I will not attend the spring
meeting. I don't know of any DBA (v1.0, of course) who is not
disillusioned and disappointed by the policies of the Oracle Corp. Oracle
should really look carefully at what has happened to DEC, Microsoft and
IBM. DEC fell when it begun doing things not unlike Oracle Corp. is doing
these days, IBM saw its empire shrink and Microsoft saw the emergence of
Linux, which has sprung up from nowhere and is now cutting deeply into
the MS bottom line. IBM was the only company able to reinvent itself and
adjust to the emergence of the mini-computer. Oracle has reinvented
itself and became closed, secretive corporate giant without any scruples.
The quality of their products is very questionable, their licensing
practices too. Selling the product and then charging for the ability to
tune it is morally dubious, to say the least. That is the primary reason
why I am not suggesting to my boss to buy diagnostics & tuning pack
license. Instead of a nice company that I was proud to recommend to my
management, Oracle became a corporate bully that I am trying to avoid at
all costs, whenever I can. Sic transit gloria mundi.
joel garry
> vsevolod afanassiev wrote,on my timestamp of 3/03/2010 8:15 PM:
>
> > I think it depends on the specifics of the case. If to investigate
> > this case Oracle Support needs init.ora parametes
> > or server patch level or similar then this information should be
> > provided in one form or another.
>
> Good. All they have to do is ask for it, if/when needed. Period.
I strongly agree with the sentiments in this thread. But, here I have
to point out how common it is, to the point of being the mode, that
people won't supply the necessary information up front (right
Sybrand? :-) . From that viewpoint, it merely becomes an issue of
degree as to how much they have to supply to initiate an SR. I'm sure
we've all seen order entry systems that create a header as a separate
transaction from the order lines - that's wrong from a design
standpoint, but right from the viewpoint of having a resumable entry
process (or points up the deficiency of not having multiple levels of
transactions). So in an SR, they have to ask for certain information,
it's needed at the start. It's not a big jump from there to analyzing
the patterns of previous SR's to see what in most cases was needed.
Where they cross the line is grabbing all information ever possibly
needed. Think of this: if you have everyone upload all their trace
files, you can mine that to create a decision support tool that can
automate much trace file analysis. I'm sure you can name popular and
not-so-popular people who have done that. So why not generalize
that? Well, obviously that upsets everyone who wouldn't willingly
upload all their data. Through the magic of Computer Aided Mass
Hysteria, it becomes a potential publicity nightmare. So maybe we
should convert potential to actual and tell Warticki about what we
think on the MOS community :-D
>
> > For example if I ask Oracle Support to investigate ORA-04031 errors
> > then I would provide them with
> > - init.ora parameters
> > - contents of V$SGASTAT, STATS$SGASTAT
> > - if this is 10g and ASMM is enabled then information from the views
> > that show how memory was resized
> > - ORA-04031 trace files
> > - alert.log
>
> Exactly.
>
> > So may be they are asking for information that should have been
> > provided from the beginning
>
> Actually, they asked for nothing: they just sent that email as an auto follow-up
> to opening the SR, long before anyone had a look at it.
>
> > However if they are using lack of OCM to justify a delay in the
> > investigation when all necessary information has been provided then it
> > is bad.
>
> ORA-600 on a select from subpartitioned table, trace dump of simplified
> statement provided. What possible need would there be to know the MAC address
> of the network card in that system?
Well, what if that ORA-600 is hidden under several levels of
technology stack? Way before you get there, you may indeed need to
follow the problem including over the network. I would think most
support calls are of the form "my program isn't working," I'm sure
ora-600's are pretty scarce in the overall scheme of Oracle support.
We would all like a direct line into tertiary level support, and
personally I've noticed if the magic words are there, I often wind up
there quick. But if I'm getting a java virtual error, I'm just as
newbie as "my program isn't working" and I think an RDA is probably
appropriate. OCM is just a proactive version of that, isn't it? The
Network Is The Computer. And OCM puts all your Oracle usernames into
a world readable file. Sigh.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://twitter.com/safety
John Hurley
snip
> Got this from MOS, after submitting a SR:
>
> Dear My Oracle Support Customer
> Service Request #3-1506509011 does not have Configuration Id, it is
> recommended that you provide one to receive a faster solution.
> Thank you,
> The My Oracle Support Team
>
> Amazing! Now, not only do we have to pay through our noses for ANY
> support, if we don't install a viral tool that sends unknown
> information to Oracle, we get low-speed solutions as well?
>
> When are these geniuses gonna fathom that only an ignorant,
> irresponsible moron would accept to install a "configuration tool"
> that sends undisclosed information to Oracle, including such pearls as
> the internal MAC address of network cards?
>
> Apparently, it hasn't dropped yet with these geniuses that NO ONE in
> their right state of mind will accept to install such a tool.
You do not need to run the Oracle Config Manager "live" you can run it
disconnected so that it gathers the config information required to get
an SR moving and then you can feed in the output.
http://www.pythian.com/news/644/oracle-configuration-manager-bane-or-blessing/
Since you can gather the information disconnected you are free to look
at all this information before you ship it into Oracle.
As long as Oracle support makes up the rules about "necessary"
information ... well there's not much we can do if we need them to
work on an SR.
You can try going up the support foodchain without supplying it.
Matthias Hoys
"Hemant K Chitale" <hemantk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:048e5c7b-cd84-4fce...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
RDA? That's that "thing" that generates about 745.367 HTML files in a big
zip file, right?
Matthias
Noons
> I strongly agree with the sentiments in this thread. But, here I have
> to point out how common it is, to the point of being the mode, that
> people won't supply the necessary information up front (right
> Sybrand? :-) . From that viewpoint, it merely becomes an issue of
Not really. If you look at the SR entry process, the basics of
information are all there: type of licence, release number and patch
level, OS/hardware. And the ability to load trace files and other
supporting evidence. As well as clear instructions asking if possible
to provide a simplified reproducible case. That's a heap more than
the usual Usenet "help" entry and has served well before, why would it
not be effective now?
> Where they cross the line is grabbing all information ever possibly
> needed.
And not needed. That is the problem.
> Think of this: if you have everyone upload all their trace
> files, you can mine that to create a decision support tool that can
> automate much trace file analysis. I'm sure you can name popular and
> not-so-popular people who have done that. So why not generalize
> that?
I disagree. Support is not reducible to a mechanized, half-arsed
pseudo-AI tool cobbled together from past information. Each release
of Oracle has its own problems with new features - as well as a fair
share of others that are common with previous releases - most
unfortunately, but it's a fact! Any attempt to automate analysis of
SRs in such a climate is doomed to even more overhead, while still
needing specialist work. The notion that every SR can be analyzed
upfront by such a tool is doomed, like so many other prior attempts at
the same: nothing new here, it's not even a new idea. Tried before,
never worked, never will: software is not some immutable universe
definable by a static rule set.
> Well, what if that ORA-600 is hidden under several levels of
> technology stack? Way before you get there, you may indeed need to
> follow the problem including over the network.
Not at all. Ora-600 is an internal error in Oracle code. Period.
What causes it may be a simple command in sqlplus, or a very complex
chain of events starting with the fluttering of a butterfly's wings in
China. It still is an internal error in Oracle kernel code and needs
to be treated as such. Forget the rest: it's got nothing to do with
geography or entomology!
> I would think most
> support calls are of the form "my program isn't working,"
Sure. And how/where is OCM going to help there?
> I'm sure
> ora-600's are pretty scarce in the overall scheme of Oracle support.
I wish... I've hit 13 of them in the last year alone...
> there quick. But if I'm getting a java virtual error, I'm just as
> newbie as "my program isn't working" and I think an RDA is probably
> appropriate. OCM is just a proactive version of that, isn't it? The
> Network Is The Computer. And OCM puts all your Oracle usernames into
> a world readable file. Sigh.
I don't have a problem with a tool that collects basic information
*about Oracle configuration*. Like hell I'm gonna let lose a tool in
my servers that collects information about the network itself, its
setup and most secure information. Read on about the arp command,
present in any pc although few know what it can do.
No way it's gonna happen. Period.
Noons
> You do not need to run the Oracle Config Manager "live" you can run it
> disconnected so that it gathers the config information required to get
> an SR moving and then you can feed in the output.
John, please! I am *fully* aware of how OCM can be run: I installed
and examined it AGES ago. It is a viral tool. It has no place ANYWHERE
in a modern data centre. Period.
> Since you can gather the information disconnected you are free to look
> at all this information before you ship it into Oracle.
I am not even remotely interested in wasting my time filtering what is
sent to Oracle: my employer doesn't pay me to do Oracle's work. Is
that clear?
> As long as Oracle support makes up the rules about "necessary"
> information ... well there's not much we can do if we need them to
> work on an SR.
Guess what: we are the paying client of a service, we make the rules.
Basic law of business, as well as common law.
Oracle better not forget that...
> You can try going up the support foodchain without supplying it.
You bet. And I can also make my next support payment dependent on
Oracle changing their attitude.
Noons
> They're really pushing it hard! They want to be able to charge for
> licenses automatically. The results are really beginning to show, on the
> OUG meetings first. The NYOUG in the last October was a disaster, pure
> marketing pitch, mostly by Oracle and a few satellites. None of my
> colleagues was there, it was a loss of time. I will not attend the spring
> meeting. I don't know of any DBA (v1.0, of course) who is not
Oh, the OUG has stopped being minimally relevant years ago. Once it
was opened to control by external parties to peddle their wares and
services instead of being run by users, the end of its usefulness was
obvious.
Only fools who thought it was a "great marketing avenue" kept showing
up: real users left years ago.
We formed a new dba one last year and it's been a success, with
relevant matters being discussed and frequent meetings. Much more
useful. Thank Pythian for that.
Of course Oracle hasn't even offered to help, although their folks
seem to be keen to show up and eat pizza at our expense...
> practices too. Selling the product and then charging for the ability to
> tune it is morally dubious, to say the least. That is the primary reason
That one is such a customer relations disaster! I wonder who is the
genius that thought that one up and if he/she has been called to
explain the outcome.
But knowing how things work in big corporations, probably a VP by
now...
> license. Instead of a nice company that I was proud to recommend to my
> management, Oracle became a corporate bully that I am trying to avoid at
> all costs, whenever I can. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Ah well: not just you, I'm sure...
joel garry
> On Mar 4, 5:23 am, John Hurley <johnbhur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
(Note for lurkers, I agree with pretty much everything Noons said
besides the following)
>
> Guess what: we are the paying client of a service, we make the rules.
> Basic law of business, as well as common law.
> Oracle better not forget that...
Not hardly. There are presumptions there of equal footing that just
don't apply. It seems apparent Oracle is well aware they can simply
wear down anyone who starts chest-thumping about lawsuits. They
_should_ treat us as though we make the rules, but google "fire your
customers" which is making the rounds again thanks to Seth Godin.
More realistically, there are just so many customers that a few
squeaks are a cost of doing business. Dropped penny? More like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAVYYe87b9w
>
> > You can try going up the support foodchain without supplying it.
>
> You bet. And I can also make my next support payment dependent on
> Oracle changing their attitude.
As Rocky would say to Bullwinkle "that trick never works." Bullwinkle
usually pulls out something like
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_F3F2-KgbhTc/SWAl_9WnUxI/AAAAAAAAAvM/ESUslxKrabE/s400/bullwinkle_magic-hat.jpg
But I suppose it's a nice dream.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
The $29M Captcha challenge:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivXdDeMgo_ObMdWDdtcvpTKKD30AD9E64CGG1
John Hurley
snip
> John, please! I am *fully* aware of how OCM can be run: I installed
> and examined it AGES ago. It is a viral tool. It has no place ANYWHERE
> in a modern data centre. Period.
Chill dude. Your posting here made it a little unclear to me at least
what you were aware of here.
You don't really have any choice about installing it ... it comes with
the software. New patchsets and maintenance that goes into the system
keeps updating it.
About the only choices that we have here is how we configure it ... if
we configure it ... and if we use it ... how we use it.
> > Since you can gather the information disconnected you are free to look
> > at all this information before you ship it into Oracle.
>
> I am not even remotely interested in wasting my time filtering what is
> sent to Oracle: my employer doesn't pay me to do Oracle's work. Is
> that clear?
If your employer pays you to support Oracle databases then anything
relevant to Oracle support probably comes under your discretion in
some regard. What you choose to do is obviously up to you.
> > As long as Oracle support makes up the rules about "necessary"
> > information ... well there's not much we can do if we need them to
> > work on an SR.
>
> Guess what: we are the paying client of a service, we make the rules.
> Basic law of business, as well as common law.
> Oracle better not forget that...
Maybe we don't speak the same language apparently.
I don't see anyone here arguing against the idea that we don't like
what has been forced on us.
> > You can try going up the support foodchain without supplying it.
>
> You bet. And I can also make my next support payment dependent on
> Oracle changing their attitude.
The unfortunate situation is that Oracle customers need a support
contract to be able to download patches/patchset updates/patchsets
along with new releases etc.
Mladen Gogala
> You don't really have any choice about installing it ... it comes with
> the software. New patchsets and maintenance that goes into the system
> keeps updating it.
Actually, you do. I consistently refuse to give it my CSI.
joel garry
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:51:37 -0800, John Hurley wrote:
> > You don't really have any choice about installing it ... it comes with
> > the software. New patchsets and maintenance that goes into the system
> > keeps updating it.
>
> Actually, you do. I consistently refuse to give it my CSI.
>
That's not good enough. It still keeps running and trying to call
home by default. Just 'cause it doesn't succeed doesn't mean you
don't have to actively configure it to turn it off. So have you
figured out all the things it is doing and all the resources it is
taking up? (That's the editorial ranting you, not you in particular).
From the readme:
------------------------------------ begin inclusion
Enabling/Disabling collection of IP and MAC addresses:
-----------------------------------------------------
With the 10.2.5.0.0 release of Oracle Configuration Manager, the user
now
has the ability to disable the collection of specific configuration
items. The
only two configuration items that can be disabled are the collection
of the
host IP address and the Network Interface MAC accress. By default,
these
configuration items are collected.
To disable their collection, add a property to the
collector.properties file
in $ORACLE_HOME/ccr/config.
Add the following line to disable the collection of the host IP
address:
ccr.metric.host.ecm_hw_nic.inet_address=false
Add the following line to disable the Network Interface MAC address
collection:
ccr.metric.host.ecm_hw_nic.mac_address=false
The metric(s) are re-enabled by removing the corresponding line from
the
collector.properties file.
------------------------------------ End inclusion
Did not giving the CSI prevent /oracle/app/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_1/
ccr/config/default/targets.xml from having your hostname? Have you
checked where ccr.endpoint points to in ccr.properties? (If I were a
bad guy, perhaps that's where I'd go to make your system give me your
information. If I knew how it worked). How about those funnily named
xml files in ccr/state?
find $ORACLE_HOME/ccr -exec grep -l db_users {} \; -exec ll {} \;
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Well, Oracle me to tears! http://weblogs.java.net/blog/2009/06/03/what-larry-said-ill-oracle-you
John Hurley
snip
> > You don't really have any choice about installing it ... it comes with
> > the software. New patchsets and maintenance that goes into the system
> > keeps updating it.
>
> Actually, you do. I consistently refuse to give it my CSI.
Ummm that's the configuring part and using it part ... not the
installing part.
Noons
> Not hardly. There are presumptions there of equal footing that just
> don't apply. It seems apparent Oracle is well aware they can simply
> wear down anyone who starts chest-thumping about lawsuits. They
> _should_ treat us as though we make the rules, but google "fire your
> customers" which is making the rounds again thanks to Seth Godin.
Interesting concept. And one of the many reasons why we ghave a GFC
that everyone knows how to correct and yet no one has been able to
fix. Somewhere in all that there is an element of reality missing...
> More realistically, there are just so many customers that a few
> squeaks are a cost of doing business. Dropped penny? More likehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAVYYe87b9w
Yeah, I know. But no matter how many companies Oracle buys to offset
the lack of growth in DB business, there will be soon a day where
reality will catch up.
> > You bet. And I can also make my next support payment dependent on
> > Oracle changing their attitude.
>
> As Rocky would say to Bullwinkle "that trick never works." Bullwinkle
> usually pulls out something likehttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/_F3F2-KgbhTc/SWAl_9WnUxI/AAAAAAAAAvM/ESUslxK...
LOL!
>
> But I suppose it's a nice dream.
One that'll cost them a coupla hundred grand a year.
And that's just one customer...
;)
Noons
> Chill dude. Your posting here made it a little unclear to me at least
> what you were aware of here.
You are right: sorry. Chilled.
> You don't really have any choice about installing it ... it comes with
> the software. New patchsets and maintenance that goes into the system
> keeps updating it.
Wanna bet?
$cd $ORACLE_HOME/ccr
ksh: /u01/app/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_1/ccr: not found.
$
:) qed.
> About the only choices that we have here is how we configure it ... if
> we configure it ... and if we use it ... how we use it.
One of the reasons why I spent a few months looking into it.
Initially with the best of intentions, but as I learned more and more
of what it does, with the single intention of disabling it once and
for all.
> If your employer pays you to support Oracle databases then anything
> relevant to Oracle support probably comes under your discretion in
> some regard. What you choose to do is obviously up to you.
Exactly. I chose to let Oracle support do their work, not me.
There is a marked difference between supporting a database that
happens to use Oracle software and supporting Oracle software: the two
are far from interchangeable.
> The unfortunate situation is that Oracle customers need a support
> contract to be able to download patches/patchset updates/patchsets
> along with new releases etc.
Oracle used to sell separate upgrade licensing and support licensing,
back in the pre-6 days.
Guess why they bundled both into a single licence? ;)
I wonder if anyone ever tested the legality under common law of them
doing so...
Noons
> The metric(s) are re-enabled by removing the corresponding line from
> the
> collector.properties file.
>
> ------------------------------------ End inclusion
>
> Did not giving the CSI prevent /oracle/app/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_1/
> ccr/config/default/targets.xml from having your hostname? Have you
> checked where ccr.endpoint points to in ccr.properties? (If I were a
> bad guy, perhaps that's where I'd go to make your system give me your
> information. If I knew how it worked). How about those funnily named
> xml files in ccr/state?
Interesting enough if you install a new version, the behaviour reverts
back to sending everything. How nice is that?...
John Hurley
snip
> Wanna bet?
> $cd $ORACLE_HOME/ccr
> ksh: /u01/app/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_1/ccr: not found.
> $
>
> :) qed.
I will take your bet ...
$ cd $ORACLE_HOME/ccr
$ pwd
/u01/app/oracle/product/11.1.0/db_1/ccr
John Hurley
snip
> > Wanna bet?
> > $cd $ORACLE_HOME/ccr
> > ksh: /u01/app/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_1/ccr: not found.
> > $
>
> > :) qed.
>
> I will take your bet ...
>
> $ cd $ORACLE_HOME/ccr
> $ pwd
> /u01/app/oracle/product/11.1.0/db_1/ccr
Here is my last 10.2.0.4 system ...
$ pwd
/u01/app/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_1/ccr
$ ll -ltr
total 56
-rw-r--r-- 1 oracle oinstall 23331 Dec 17 2007 README.TXT
... ( lines deleted )
$ more README.TXT
Oracle Configuration Manager Release Notes
Version: 10.2.7.1.0
Date: December 17, 2007
These Release Notes list the important features of Oracle
Configuration Manager
and the known issues in this release.
The steps to install and configure Oracle Configuration Manager are
documented
in the Oracle Configuration Manager Installation and Administration
Guide.
About Oracle Configuration Manager
----------------------------------
joel garry
Well, if you are going to spout reality and business and costs...
From http://www.oracle.com/corporate/investor_relations/earnings/10k-2009.pdf
(sorry about formatting):
"Software license updates and product support revenues, which
represented 50%, 46% and 46% of our total revenues
in fiscal 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively, is our highest margin
business unit. Support margins during fiscal 2009
were 84%, and accounted for 81% of our total margins over the same
period."
...
"In connection with the purchase price allocations for our
acquisitions, we estimate the fair value of the support
obligations assumed. The estimated fair value of the support
obligations is determined utilizing a cost build-up
approach. The cost build-up approach determines fair value by
estimating the costs related to fulfilling the
obligations plus a normal profit margin. The estimated costs to
fulfill the support obligations are based on the
historical direct costs related to providing the support services and
to correct any errors in the software products
acquired. The sum of these costs and operating profit approximates, in
theory, the amount that we would be required
to pay a third party to assume the support obligation. We do not
include any costs associated with selling efforts or
research and development or the related fulfillment margins on these
costs. Profit associated with any selling efforts
is excluded because the acquired entities would have concluded those
selling efforts on the support contracts prior to
the acquisition date. We also do not include the estimated research
and development costs in our fair value
determinations, as these costs are not deemed to represent a legal
obligation at the time of acquisition.
As a result, we did not recognize software license updates and product
support revenues related to support contracts
in the amounts of $243 million, $179 million and $212 million that
would have been otherwise recorded by the
acquired businesses as independent entities in fiscal 2009, 2008 and
2007, respectively."
...
"(Dollars in
millions) 2009
Actual Constant 2008 Actual Constant 2007
Percent Change Percent Change
Year Ended May 31,
Software License Updates and Product Support
Revenues:
Americas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$ 6,462 16% 18% $ 5,587 19% 17% $ 4,698
EMEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3,850 10% 21% 3,503 32% 20% 2,653
Asia
Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1,442 17% 20% 1,238 27% 18% 978
Total
revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11,754 14% 19% 10,328 24% 18% 8,329
Expenses:
Software license updates and product
support(1) . . . . . . . 1,075 9% 14% 987 19%
13% 831
Stock-based
compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 35% 35% 10 -6% -6% 11
Amortization of intangible
assets(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 41% 41%
596 27% 27% 470
Total
expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1,929 21% 24% 1,593 21% 18% 1,312
Total
Margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$ 9,825 12% 18% $ 8,735 24% 18% $ 7,017
Total Margin
% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84% 85% 84%
"
So I'd say, if everyone (not an oracle employee) who posted at least
twice on here in the last 3 years about any database stuff pulled a
few hundred thousand dollars out of the stream - it _might_ click over
one of the percents.
As they say, first you have to get the mule's attention. Gnats
buzzing around don't.
But of course, Larry long ago recognized the maturity of the db
market, that part of the revenue is just gravy. Like walking around
drinking a container of KFC gravy (sorry for that obscure reference,
heard routine on satellite comedy channel and mental image stuck).
jg
--
@home.com is bogus. "...Toyota acknowledged it has only a single
laptop available in the U.S. to download its data recorder information
because it is still a prototype, despite being in use since 2001 in
Toyota vehicles." - http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/04/ap-impact-toyota-secretive-on-black-box-data/
joel garry
The Boss
I bet that was Noons' situation after 'the installing part', but he combined
'the configuration and the using part' into one statement:
rm -rf /u01/app/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_1/ccr
;)
--
Jeroen
John Hurley
snip
> I bet that was Noons' situation after 'the installing part', but he combined
> 'the configuration and the using part' into one statement:
> rm -rf /u01/app/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_1/ccr
You are not saying he is stacking the deck are ya?
I don't have many 10.2 systems left over to check but the ones I
looked at all had that directory present.
Noons
>>> Wanna bet?
>>> $cd $ORACLE_HOME/ccr
>>> ksh: /u01/app/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_1/ccr: not found.
>>> $
>>> :) qed.
>> I will take your bet ...
>>
>> $ cd $ORACLE_HOME/ccr
>> $ pwd
>> /u01/app/oracle/product/11.1.0/db_1/ccr
>
> Here is my last 10.2.0.4 system ...
>
> $ pwd
> /u01/app/oracle/product/10.2.0/db_1/ccr
> $ ll -ltr
> total 56
> -rw-r--r-- 1 oracle oinstall 23331 Dec 17 2007 README.TXT
> ... ( lines deleted )
How is that "taking my bet"? I got rid of thee darn thing after someone claimed
it couldn't be done, and you show me that it is in your system?
So what? Get rid of it. As simple as that.
Noons
Hehehe! Dare I say: "the penny dropped"?
Noons
> On Mar 4, 6:52 pm, Noons <wizofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 12:51 am, John Hurley <johnbhur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Oracle used to sell separate upgrade licensing and support licensing,
>> back in the pre-6 days.
>> Guess why they bundled both into a single licence? ;)
>> I wonder if anyone ever tested the legality under common law of them
>> doing so...
>
> Which law would that be?
> http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/licensing-law-issues-flawed-ali-software-contract-principles.html
They don't operate in one country alone and the laws of that country are not the
ones of the rest of the world...
John Hurley
snip
> How is that "taking my bet"? I got rid of thee darn thing after someone claimed
> it couldn't be done, and you show me that it is in your system?
> So what? Get rid of it. As simple as that.
Now you are changing your story here.
What's the point of posting stuff here if you want to keep claiming
different things?
Who exactly claimed that you could not get rid of it?
Noons
> On Mar 6, 8:57 pm, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> How is that "taking my bet"? I got rid of thee darn thing after someone claimed
>> it couldn't be done, and you show me that it is in your system?
>> So what? Get rid of it. As simple as that.
>
> Now you are changing your story here.
How come? Be careful with the answer, John: I dislike trolling, you know that
full well. And I don't run away like dizwell: I bite back.
> What's the point of posting stuff here if you want to keep claiming
> different things?
I post wherever I want, for whatever motives I might have, and it's absolutely
none of yours or anyone else's business if I do so, whenever I do so.
Is that in any shape or format not perfectly clear?
> Who exactly claimed that you could not get rid of it?
Actually, you did:
and I quote:
"You don't really have any choice about installing it ... it comes with
the software. New patchsets and maintenance that goes into the system
keeps updating it.
About the only choices that we have here is how we configure it ... if
we configure it ... and if we use it ... how we use it. "
Me, I simply chose to get rid of it which is perfectly possible.
Hence, claiming that the only choice is to configure it or how to use it is
probably wrong?
But don't let that change your path: keep installing and running it, I'm quite
sure that'll make you a candidate for the next ace of the year or some other
equally irrelevant lolly.
I prefer industry-wide recognitions, rather than just one maker's.
John Hurley
snip
> "You don't really have any choice about installing it ... it comes with
> the software. New patchsets and maintenance that goes into the system
> keeps updating it.
> About the only choices that we have here is how we configure it ... if
> we configure it ... and if we use it ... how we use it. "
>
> Me, I simply chose to get rid of it which is perfectly possible.
> Hence, claiming that the only choice is to configure it or how to use it is
> probably wrong?
It probably would have been useful if you had explained what you did
and why earlier in this series of postings.
As you posted it in sequence it looked ( at least to me ) like you
were claiming that it had not been installed.
With the actions that you performed and then throwing in the words
"wanna bet" my opinion is that allegations of trolling might be
reconsidered.
Going back to my original idea ... if you do ditch it ... it will come
back again.
If we choose not to use it ( as much as we can ... except when forced
to by Oracle support demands ) ... that's probably about as far as
most of us can reasonably go at this time.
Feel free to rant on but I really don't need any personal type slams
from you thanks very much.
Steve Howard
> Got this from MOS, after submitting a SR:
>
> Dear My Oracle Support Customer
> Service Request #3-1506509011 does not have Configuration Id, it is
> recommended that you provide one to receive a faster solution.
> Thank you,
> The My Oracle Support Team
>
> Amazing! Now, not only do we have to pay through our noses for ANY
> support, if we don't install a viral tool that sends unknown
> information to Oracle, we get low-speed solutions as well?
>
> When are these geniuses gonna fathom that only an ignorant,
> irresponsible moron would accept to install a "configuration tool"
> that sends undisclosed information to Oracle, including such pearls as
> the internal MAC address of network cards?
>
> Apparently, it hasn't dropped yet with these geniuses that NO ONE in
> their right state of mind will accept to install such a tool.
>
> been using it for ages without problems: I don't give a toss what you
> might do, you are not me and you don't run under the same conditions I
> have to run my security. Capice?
I used the OCM tool not long ago, and it uploaded the wrong
information to Oracle. It took four (wasted) days of working on an SR
to determine that.
I have also found the best analysts never ask for an RDA. They always
ask for what is relevant to your problem (alert log, crsd logs, etc.),
and then work their way to more stuff if there is a need.
John Hurley
snip
> I used the OCM tool not long ago, and it uploaded the wrong
> information to Oracle. It took four (wasted) days of working on an SR
> to determine that.
>
> I have also found the best analysts never ask for an RDA. They always
> ask for what is relevant to your problem (alert log, crsd logs, etc.),
> and then work their way to more stuff if there is a need.
The problem is getting to the best analysts. The very large companies
with big support contracts have names and phone numbers of people in
the Oracle management chain that not many people have access to.
joel garry
> On Mar 2, 7:35 pm, Noons <wizofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Got this from MOS, after submitting a SR:
>
> > Dear My Oracle Support Customer
> > Service Request #3-1506509011 does not have Configuration Id, it is
> > recommended that you provide one to receive a faster solution.
> > Thank you,
> > The My Oracle Support Team
>
> > Amazing! Now, not only do we have to pay through our noses for ANY
> > support, if we don't install a viral tool that sends unknown
> > information to Oracle, we get low-speed solutions as well?
>
> > When are these geniuses gonna fathom that only an ignorant,
> > irresponsible moron would accept to install a "configuration tool"
> > that sends undisclosed information to Oracle, including such pearls as
> > the internal MAC address of network cards?
>
> > Apparently, it hasn't dropped yet with these geniuses that NO ONE in
> > their right state of mind will accept to install such a tool.
>
> > And for the silly groupies who might feel inclined to reply they have
> > been using it for ages without problems: I don't give a toss what you
> > might do, you are not me and you don't run under the same conditions I
> > have to run my security. Capice?
>
> I used the OCM tool not long ago, and it uploaded the wrong
> information to Oracle. It took four (wasted) days of working on an SR
> to determine that.
Without getting too close to non-disclosure thingies, what kind of
wrong?
>
> I have also found the best analysts never ask for an RDA. They always
> ask for what is relevant to your problem (alert log, crsd logs, etc.),
> and then work their way to more stuff if there is a need.
This is a good point. I wish I could get enough data points to know
for sure. I know there have been times when I wonder why they are
asking for specific things, it's hard to tell if someone good is
helping them and it's something I don't know about, or if cluelessness
propagates.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/05/hp-trims-1q-net-income-because-of-lawsuit-ruling/
Noons
> It probably would have been useful if you had explained what you did
> and why earlier in this series of postings.
It probably would have been easier for you if you had read the entire post and
quoted my phrase in the context I made it. Never forget: "it depends".
>
> Going back to my original idea ... if you do ditch it ... it will come
> back again.
and it'll be ditched again. Very simple and no sweat at all.
> If we choose not to use it ( as much as we can ... except when forced
> to by Oracle support demands ) ... that's probably about as far as
> most of us can reasonably go at this time.
Indeed. My call to support as described in the original post was answered and
resolved in 24 hours. Not bad for a low-priority development system.
Until I need a faster resolution, it stays that way.
> Feel free to rant on but I really don't need any personal type slams
> from you thanks very much.
Good.
Frank van Bortel
> Got this from MOS, after submitting a SR:
>
> Dear My Oracle Support Customer
> Service Request #3-1506509011 does not have Configuration Id, it is
> recommended that you provide one to receive a faster solution.
> Thank you,
> The My Oracle Support Team
>
>
> Amazing! Now, not only do we have to pay through our noses for ANY
> support, if we don't install a viral tool that sends unknown
> information to Oracle, we get low-speed solutions as well?
>
> When are these geniuses gonna fathom that only an ignorant,
> irresponsible moron would accept to install a "configuration tool"
> that sends undisclosed information to Oracle, including such pearls as
> the internal MAC address of network cards?
>
> Apparently, it hasn't dropped yet with these geniuses that NO ONE in
> their right state of mind will accept to install such a tool.
>
Hear! Hear! Couldn't agree more!
--
Regards, Frank van Bortel
Topposting in Usenet groups I regard as offensive - I will not reply