3 ms·

can I ask you for some illumination of the licensing costs components involved with remaining licensed by Oracle? this page https://dzone.com/articles/how-much

can I ask you for some illumination of the licensing costs components involved with remaining licensed by Oracle? this page https://dzone.com/articles/how-much-does-java-cost https://dzone.com/articles/how-much-does-java-cost gives $28,500 pa for a 200 core runtime that sounds negligible compared to the engineering investment that was preferred instead. the logic of a commercially supported license is obviously the engineering depth of the original author's knowledge and in particular being able to refer to the authoritative / canonical answers were savings the only objective? if so, what did the savings get? anything better?

murderfs 5y ago
> that sounds negligible compared to the engineering investment that was preferred instead. Can you trust Oracle not to raise the pricing in the future, given that they've raised it once already?
- Sparkle-san 5y ago
  >Can you trust Oracle No
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    You can trust they’ll do whatever makes them the most money in the short term.
awill 5y ago
negligible? It all depends on how much hardware you have. If you're a startup, you don't want scaling to cost you anymore than the hardware. I remember reading years ago about the FB vs MySpace fight. MySpace was (I think) .NET on Windows with SQL Server. Every extra machine cost a fortune in licensing. Whereas every FB machine was PHP/MySQL. It matters.
- nobleach 5y ago
  Original MySpace was ColdFusion. They later migrated to .NET. I can't imagine wanting to pay for either one of those back in that era.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > It all depends on how much hardware you have. If you're a startup, you don't want scaling to cost you anymore than the hardware. A lot of companies operate with a dozen or so servers, and most startups never need to scale beyond that.
marginalia_nu 5y ago
I don't have exact figures, but I'd guess our customers really weren't too enthusiastic about getting bullied into vendor lock-in with Oracle, which through this very act had already demonstrated their unreliability and willingness to renege on existing terms. That may have been the bigger reason for migrating. Staying on Oracle was definitely an option, but nobody wanted that.

murderfs 5y ago

> that sounds negligible compared to the engineering investment that was preferred instead. Can you trust Oracle not to raise the pricing in the future, given that they've raised it once already?

Sparkle-san 5y ago
>Can you trust Oracle No
- rbanffy 5y ago
  You can trust they’ll do whatever makes them the most money in the short term.

awill 5y ago

negligible? It all depends on how much hardware you have. If you're a startup, you don't want scaling to cost you anymore than the hardware. I remember reading years ago about the FB vs MySpace fight. MySpace was (I think) .NET on Windows with SQL Server. Every extra machine cost a fortune in licensing. Whereas every FB machine was PHP/MySQL. It matters.

nobleach 5y ago
Original MySpace was ColdFusion. They later migrated to .NET. I can't imagine wanting to pay for either one of those back in that era.
rbanffy 5y ago
> It all depends on how much hardware you have. If you're a startup, you don't want scaling to cost you anymore than the hardware. A lot of companies operate with a dozen or so servers, and most startups never need to scale beyond that.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

I don't have exact figures, but I'd guess our customers really weren't too enthusiastic about getting bullied into vendor lock-in with Oracle, which through this very act had already demonstrated their unreliability and willingness to renege on existing terms. That may have been the bigger reason for migrating. Staying on Oracle was definitely an option, but nobody wanted that.