I think you'd be surprised at how many corporates look at the cost of RHN
Satellite and see it as too high. When it comes to penny pinching, the big guys
tend to do it pretty well. Only one of my previous clients was happy with the
cost of Satellite - and investment bank before the crunch. One of the first
things they chopped when hitting the recent hard times was Satellite. They now
use Altiris.
I wouldn't advocate alienating any user base. I just think corporate-land would
be keener to ditch Oracle than many people think.
Duncan
On 04 May 2010 at 17:35 Andy Speagle <[email protected]> wrote:
> El mar, 04-05-2010 a las 04:27 -0500, [email protected] escribió:
> > I'd echo this sentiment. Having worked on a number of large corporate
> > Satellite installations, I can't think of a single client who wouldn't
> > jump at the chance of ditching the extra Oracle licenses involved.
>
> Indeed... but many larger organizations won't even blink at this
> license.
>
> > Maintaining support for an Oracle back end may be a requirement, but
> > from my own experience, moving to PostgreSQL as the primary
> > development effort would not raise any eyebrows in corporate-land. It
> > would also help broaden the appeal of Spacewalk amongst the open
> > source development community as coders for other distros will likely
> > (IMO) view the Oracle dependency as a blocker to them investing their
> > time. Opening the path for other distros to develop Spacewalk as
> > their management tool can only be a good thing I reckon.
>
> I will be quite happy to see the database options expand, but I assert
> that many organizations standardize their database environments and
> build a wealth of support infrastructure around them. Having to
> implement a new database architecture to support Spacewalk/Satellite
> could be quite unpalatable. Unless I'm mistaken, reducing
> administrative overhead is one goal of the spacewalk/satellite projects.
> The addition of another database architecture to support would be
> counter-productive for some organizations.
>
> While I agree that opening doors for smaller organizations to use the
> products on PostgreSQL is desirable, I would not like to see this happen
> as the expense of the existing user base.
> --
> Andy Speagle
>
> Systems & Storage Administrator
> UCATS - Wichita State University
>
> O: 316.978.3869
> C: 316.617.2431
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
