> Amortized over what period of time, though? Is that today's price, or 17 years ago? Is that list price or the price an actual small user would pay? http://ww

> Amortized over what period of time, though? Is that today's price, or 17 years ago? Is that list price or the price an actual small user would pay? http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/pricing/technology-price-list-070617.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/pricing/technology-price-... Today's prices. 10s of thousands it is still whether you get it at retail price (which is unlikely) or if you amortize it for several years (including yearly support of course). An actual small user is still likely to pay 10s of thousands of dollars a year. > I'm sure you'r in the majority here on HN, but that's merely selection bias. Also, it's true today, but was it true 17 years ago, circa Oracle 9i? Can you provide me with such a feature that Oracle has but Postgres doesn't and is in demand? Oracle db is a masterpiece and has the best performance of any database I'm aware of , sometimes several times more if properly configured. That was it's big selling point in days of vertical scaling - the hardware was often a lot more expensive then oracle's licensing. Why are you bringing up a version from 2001? Was that mentioned in parent posts? > Businesses whose core competency isn't tech and/or who aren't located in a tech hub aren't likely even to consider the "make" option. Business without tech as a core competency outsource. > That's simply false, as the Oracle DBA I know routinely contraced out to companies as a temporary, non-dedicated DBA. I suppose you could run an oracle DB with no or little DBA support. But the companies I know who use it use features that require constant DBA support - replication being the biggest one.