It's fascinating when somebody proclaims "50%
savings in TCO over a 5 year period" when it is patently obvious that
A) such a configuration has not existed over the past five years and
B) it will never exist over any contiguous five year period. The lifecycle
of systems doesn't happen that way.
Back in the 1980s when the US space shuttle
"Challenger" explosion was being investigated by a panel of eminent politicians,
lawyers, and scientists, Nobel-laureate physicist Richard Feynmann singled
out NASA testimony stating that the "Challenger" explosion could only
happen in 1 out of 100,000 launches.
Noting that US space shuttles had been
launched about 50-60 times up to that point, he asked how anyone could
possibly project odds of "1 out of 100,000", never mind try to pass it off
as "fact".
When I read about TCO on a configuration going
forward 5 years, I wonder if those people are on-call and wearing pagers,
or whether they know anybody who is...
|
- SQL Server vs. Oracle 9i KENNETH JANUSZ
- Re: SQL Server vs. Oracle 9i tday6
- Re: SQL Server vs. Oracle 9i Igor Neyman
- RE: SQL Server vs. Oracle 9i Jamadagni, Rajendra
- Re: SQL Server vs. Oracle 9i Gene Sais
- RE: SQL Server vs. Oracle 9i Adams, Matthew (GEA, 088130)
- RE: SQL Server vs. Oracle 9i Grabowy, Chris
- Re: SQL Server vs. Oracle 9i Rajesh . Rao
- Re: SQL Server vs. Oracle 9i Tim Gorman
- Re: SQL Server vs. Oracle 9i Bill Conner
- Re: SQL Server vs. Oracle 9i KENNETH JANUSZ