3 ms·
Wow Oracle being aggressive with licensing terms, who would've thought. \s Although when you look at the actual numbers: "[someone] estimated that a company wi
by WJW 4y ago
Wow Oracle being aggressive with licensing terms, who would've thought. \s
Although when you look at the actual numbers: "[someone] estimated that a company with 250 employees, 20 Java Desktop Users and eight Java Installed Processors would pay $3,000 a year on the old model, which grows to $45,000 a year under the new subscription, a 1,400 percent increase."
45k per year is a lot compared to 3k, and obviously it's even more compared to other languages which are completely free to use. But at the same time 45k is not all that much for a 250 employee software company. Probably not enough to justify a complete rewrite.
- KingOfCoders 4y agoOn that topic, https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts
- KingOfCoders 4y agoNot sure, why would you rewrite instead of changing the SDK/JDK?
- wongarsu 4y agoIf you count just the 20 Java Desktop Users, that's $2250/user/year. Sure, it's not a lot compared to salary, but on the other hand at that point Delphi starts looking cheap again. Not enough to justify a rewrite, but enough to consider what to do with new projects.
- kaba0 4y agoJava is a language which is completely free to use.
- ensignavenger 4y agoIts enough to use as additional proof that Oracle is a bad vendor to rely on in the long run, as they have demonstrated that they don't mind massively raising prices at the drop of a hat because "its not enough to justify a rewrite". Of course, I said 'additional evidence'.... if Oracles many other shenanigans haven't convinced the pointy-haired bosses by now, I'm not sure anything will.