Hi,
David Wheeler:
> M$ is a good example, as their database is quite capable, and costs only a
> few hundred bucks (last time I looked). If RedHat DB is three times the
> price, IME many PHBs will go with SQL Server, instead, just because it's
> cheaper, and they know the Microsoft name (and FUD
> > In my experience DB pricing structures seem to be a mystery whichever
> > platform you look at :)
>
> 20k per CPU. See:
Word is that the 2006 Microsoft automobiles will have similar pricing
structures. You'll pay $8,000 per year for each "seat-license" that you
want, and another $2,000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree. How is a person supposed to count the number of users if the database
> is being used to support a public dynamic web site? Is the company supposed to
> buy a separate license for every unique IP address that ever hits a dynamic web
> page on the site? I c
even per CPU, but
licensing any server application per user quickly becomes ridiculous when the
server is supporting any internet application.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 06/26/2001 11:14:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Wesley Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] More Red Hat
At 8:57 -0700 2001-06-25, David Wheeler wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> Here is a link with more information than the press release:
>>
>> http://www.redhat.com/products/software/database/
>
>$2225 Are they *kidding*???
If they really deliver, i.e. you get reason
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, webb sprague wrote:
> >
> > > I guess I prefer my free software free...
> >
> > Agreed, but alot of companies want to be able to point a finger at
> > someone or some company when something goes awry. With RH being
> > the first
