On 2008-07-21, Ezekiel <y@xxxxx> wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:slrng89tqd.qk2.jedi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On 2008-07-21, Ezekiel <y@xxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:2608219.lBthEdcHCN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> Interesting comment spotted on Jonathan Schwartz' blog:
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | [...] I work for a major Fortune company, and we're in the process of
>>>> putting
>>>> | Oracle on a "sunset" list of restricted vendors. No new applications
>>>> are
>>>> | allowed on Oracle, the only approved vendors are Sun/MySQL and
>>>> Microsoft/SQL
>>>> | Server. So I don't know how Sun did that, but if their objective was
>>>> to
>>>> | provide competition for Oracle, it appears to have worked with my
>>>> | management...
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://arjen-lentz.livejournal.com/125253.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> " ....the only approved vendors are Sun/MySQL and Microsoft/SQL Server."
>>
>> So they've got to choose between a drunkard and a midget.
>>
>> It really makes you wonder who's palms got greased on that deal.
>
> Probably nobody's. For starters we know nothing about what this (perhaps
> real) major Fortune company is. (Interesting that it's not a Fortune-100 or
> Fortune-500 company but a "major Fortune "company).
If they have enough of anything to get on any Fortune list then
they most certainly have databases that are too important to trust
to what mysql has for crash/disaster recovery and applications
that simply won't scale under mssql.
OTOH this company might be on no Fortune list of any sort and this
person might have no real clue what sort of companies get on thos
lists or whether or not their company qualifies.
>
> But anyway, most companies especially large ones have a "preferred vendors"
> list. In IT for example the last thing they want is database products from
> 28 different vendords. The fewer databases they have to support the lower
> their IT costs will be. Perhaps they had a falling-out with Oracle over
> changes in how licensing costs are computed (like we did about 4 years ago)
> and decided not to make any new purchases from them.
>
> It doesn't mean that anything corrupt happened or that any shady deals were
Sure it does.
There are some jobs that a big company will need to do that neither
of those products can handle. Someone was paid or someone is throwing a
temper tantrum. Either way they are allowing their personal interests
jeopardize the company.
> made. Companies deal or don't deal with other companies for a variety of
> reasons.
Sure. However, the universe is not limited to Sun, Microsoft and Oracle.
>
>
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
--
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
|||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
