I recently left a DOE lab where we were going to manage several thousand linux boxes with Spacewalk. Oracle was the deal breaker.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Brandon Galbraith Voice: 630.492.0464
_______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
