Ted MacNeil writes:
1. ORACLE is abandoning z/OS. 9 was the last (and 32-bit)
release. If you want 64-bit on z, you have to go to
z/LINUX.
Oracle Database 10g R2 (31-bit) is available and is (according to Oracle)
their last release for z/OS. There's an IBM redbook describing its
capabilities (at
Reminder: I don't speak for any corporation. I do speak *to* corporations
-- well, at least to people who work at corporations.
I think there may be some over-analysis here. In theory at least, any
vendor introducing their software product to a new (for them) platform can
price it however
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Timothy Sipples
timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I think there may be some over-analysis here. In theory at least, any
vendor introducing their software product to a new (for them) platform can
price it however they want. SNIP
Of course. What I've seen is
Eric Bielefeld pisze:
I can see why SAS would want to sell to the Windows market. There are
how many PCs in the world that run Windows. Several hundred million?
Compare that to what - 10,000 possible mainframes to sell to. Bill
Gates got to be the richest man on earth putting
Windows on
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:
You're assuming that you can only run ONE copy of Linux on a CPU.
I'm making no such assumption.
Pardon me. Implying. See below.
snip
While this is all very interesting, it doesn't answer my original query.
Somebody stated
Because software companies tend to make much of money on maintenance.
100 (say) distributed licenses replaced by 1 z license = less maintenance; the
ILC doesn't necessarily cover the delta.
If that were true, ORACLE would most likely not been involved in the PQ
conversion project, a few years
I understand pricing (dis)advantages, which causes that it is cheaper to
use SAS on Intel than on z/OS, or run several Linux+Oracle images on
IFL than on several Intel machines.
However I'm curious - WHY ???
Why does SAS Institute allow for cannibal competition? Is it good for
them to lose
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:33 AM, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl wrote:
I understand pricing (dis)advantages, which causes that it is cheaper to use
SAS on Intel than on z/OS, or run several Linux+Oracle images on IFL than
on several Intel machines.
However I'm curious - WHY ???
Why does
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Gibney, Dave
I may be wrong, but I thought Oracle was still a per processor
license, even under z/Linux. A dozen Oracles on a zprocessor is
cheaper
than the same on dedicated Intel boxen.
That's our
I've heard (anecdotally) that Oracle is
abandoning z/OS because the z/OS customers have abandoned Oracle.
That statement is both true and false.
1. ORACLE is abandoning z/OS. 9 was the last (and 32-bit) release. If you want
64-bit on z, you have to go to z/LINUX.
2. ORACLE announced, over two
I can see why SAS would want to sell to the Windows market. There are how
many PCs in the world that run Windows. Several hundred million? Compare
that to what - 10,000 possible mainframes to sell to. Bill Gates got to be
the richest man on earth putting
Windows on every one of those
I may be wrong, but I thought Oracle was still a per processor
license, even under z/Linux. A dozen Oracles on a zprocessor is cheaper
than the same on dedicated Intel box.
Yes, you are correct and for review, 1-IFL (z800-z9EC) equates to one INTEL
Dual-Core Server or Laptop. Thus a Quad-Core
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:
I've heard (anecdotally) that Oracle is
abandoning z/OS because the z/OS customers have abandoned Oracle.
That statement is both true and false.
1. ORACLE is abandoning z/OS. 9 was the last (and 32-bit) release. If you
I may be wrong, but I thought Oracle was still a per processor
license, even under z/Linux. A dozen Oracles on a zprocessor is cheaper
than the same on dedicated Intel boxen.
Dave Gibney
Information Technology Services
Washington State Univsersity
-Original Message-
From: IBM
I may be wrong, but I thought Oracle was still a per processor license, even
under z/Linux. A dozen Oracles on a zprocessor is cheaper
than the same on dedicated Intel boxen.
Yes, you are correct.
But, aside from being accurate, what does this have to do with SAS licensing,
under z/LINUX, which
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:
I may be wrong, but I thought Oracle was still a per processor license, even
under z/Linux. A dozen Oracles on a zprocessor is cheaper
than the same on dedicated Intel boxen.
Yes, you are correct.
But, aside from being
You're assuming that you can only run ONE copy of Linux on a CPU.
I'm making no such assumption.
Since you can run more than one, the net is that it's a lot cheaper to use
Oracle on Linux on z than on the same horsepower of, say, Intel boxes.
I'm well aware of this.
More than one site has
17 matches
Mail list logo
