"Named Users" vs. "Concurrent Users" Lic.

"Named Users" vs. "Concurrent Users" Lic.

Post by Harry Skelt » Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:08:35



I am trying to find out if the use of "Named User" Lic. vs. "Concurrent User"
Licenses is standard fare for the database industry.

We are trying to get an upgrade to our Oracle licenses but there are drastic
price differences between the two types of licenses. Oracle says this is
standard. I am trying to find it if is true with other vendors. We may seek
to "Jump Ship" with Oracle if other vendors have better deals.

Thanks!
--
Harry Skelton
United Systems Security Enterprise - USS Enterprise

 
 
 

"Named Users" vs. "Concurrent Users" Lic.

Post by Jean Anders » Sat, 20 Feb 1993 00:37:10



> I am trying to find out if the use of "Named User" Lic. vs. "Concurrent User"
> Licenses is standard fare for the database industry.

Last October I summarized user perceptions of Oracle license policy (the
complete post is below). My favorite comment was the following:

+ I am a little confused by your requests. ...
+ We were presented with no client/server policy that I am aware of ...
+ We described our needs and they said, "Oh! You need this and this and this".
+ Are we missing something?

In 1989 we described our needs and the rep said "Oh, you need this and this
and this". With the original rep long gone, Oracle now claims we also
needed a "that and that and that".

In a meeting with Oracle yesterday we were told that the *user* is responsible
for fully researching and being aware of Oracle license policies--even if the
Oracle sales rep himself/herself does not understand the policy.

buyer beware,

  -jean

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

| SAIC Open Systems Division, MS A2-F                                   |
| 10210 Campus Point Drive                 phone:  (619)458-2727        |
| San Diego, CA  92121                       fax:  (619)458-4993        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|             execute disclaimer(opinion => 'mine');                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

--------------------------< begin repost >-------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle
Subject: SUMMARY: ORACLE license policies
Summary: users are confused

Date: 8 Oct 92 23:35:23 GMT


Quote:> Does everybody understand Oracle client/server and named user licensing
> policies? ...
> If you are interested in comparing notes, answer the questions below. ...

Responses were few (10 sites, 3 continents).  I promised to summarize, and
several folks have asked, so here it is. All but two requested discretion,
so I am keeping all responses confidential. Most responses were free form;
this summary follows suit.

The Questions:

+ 1) Did you have difficulty understanding Oracle's client/server policy?

Everybody aware of the policy has had problems understanding and/or working
with it, especially sites with multiple platforms.  My favorite response was
from somebody not aware of any policy:

Quote:> I am a little confused by your requests. ...
> We were presented with no client/server policy that I am aware of ...
> We described our needs and they said, "Oh! You need this and this and this".
> Are we missing something?

Excellent point. Sales reps should understand Oracle's policies and the
customer's needs well enough to put together an appropriate configuration
that won't be questioned later.

+ 2) Did you have difficulty understanding Oracle's named user policy?

Some users feel that this is a way for Oracle to arbitrarily jack up the
price, especially since there is no way for DBA's to enforce named users at
the database level (concurrent users can be enforced with the init.ora
'processes' parameter).  The common strategy then is to negotiate a concurrent
user license instead.  One user submitted the following conversion rule:

        concurrent users = (named users) / 3

+ 3) Did you request a copy of the published policy?

I'm the only one who has; although, somebody else noted "Good idea". I
requested a copy a year ago, then again last month. I didn't find out
until after my original post that it is not available to the public. So the
next time policy is mentioned, be sure to request your very own copy. :-)

+ 4) Have you purchased a client/server license in the last year? If so,
+       - What platform/operating system was it for?
+       - What was the network protocol?
+       - Did you additionally license each client separately or were clients
+         included in the server license?

User perceptions of valid client/server license configurations included:

   o    Server includes clients [Novell SPX, SUN, DEC VAX]:
        Clients are not licensed separately; they are included in the server.
   o    Floating client licenses [DEC Ultrix, PC]:
        A pool of client licenses are shared by all clients on a network,
        the number of client licenses in the pool determining the maximum
        number of concurrent users. For example, with 16 client licenses,
        only 16 of 50 (or 75, or whatever) workstations could access the
        database at the same time.
   o    Fixed client licenses [SUN, MacIntosh, PC, Novell tcp/ip]:
        Each client accessing the server must be licensed separately.
        Everybody who knew about this option said the cost was prohibitive.
        Two mentioned that the clients end up costing more than the server.
   o    "Ten packs" [PC]:
        Each client accessing the server must be licensed separately, but
        "bulk rate discounts" in increments of 10 are available, lowering
        the cost per client.

+ 5) Have you encountered any negative sales tactics such as threats of license
+    violations regarding either the client/server or named user policy?

Two sites mentioned problems with negative sales tactics involving threats
of contractual violations. One person mentioned the reverse (perhaps
refreshing to Oracle Corp. employees):

Quote:> No never from Oracle.
> In fact it is more we who have threatened them.

This sampling was too small to be truly representative, but large enough
for inconsistent policies to show up.

In a nutshell, users are confused and perceptions of policies, even on the
same platform, are inconsistent. According to a friend, Larry Ellison
acknowledged at the IOUW that policies are complex and documented in an
"encyclopedia".  If you factor in changes to policy over time, it would not
be surprising if sales reps are confused right along with their customers.

My thanks to all who took the time to respond.

 -jean

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

| SAIC Open Systems Division, MS A2-F                                   |
| 10210 Campus Point Drive                 phone:  (619)458-2727        |
| San Diego, CA  92121                       fax:  (619)458-4993        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|             execute disclaimer(opinion => 'mine');                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

---------------------------< end repost >--------------------------------------

 
 
 

1. : Connect strings - "T:"/"2:"/"X:" ?

despite browsing on-line and hardcopy manuals, I haven't found
an overview of SQL*Net connect strings/protocol specifiers,
like for example

  T: TCP/IP
  2: OS/2, Windows/NT, Windows 3.x
  X: SPX/IPX

can anybody point me to relevant docs (FAQ, Oracle on-line or hardcopy
manuals)?

Thanks,

Malgorzata Roos, University of Zurich

2. Problem with [homes]: NT maintains connection

3. Strange question on error message " PLS-00103 : Encountered the symbol "?" "" ( Urgent)

4. Problem with Commodore 1942

5. Q:"invalid ROWID" vs. "no data found"?

6. Spell checker in .tex mode

7. "Stored Procedures"- versus "SQL*Forms-only"

8. Logoff Problem

9. Stored procedures and "select" requires "into"...why?

10. Oracle7 "fieldtypes", "random selection" and more

11. Help - "Production" and "Test" databases

12. Wierd "Date" Behaviour with "ALTER SESSION"