>
> Someone named Mark ( dunno last name ) who apparently was an oracle
> employee was going to try to get these types of messy implications
> straightened out.
>
> What role was that guy in and has he made any progress in this area to
> date?
>

That would be me. The contribution was the Oracle Database Licensing
Information - see
http://www.oracle.com/pls/db102/to_t...4199%2Ftoc.htm

It should pretty much answer any questions you have. You may not always
like the answers however.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:48:16 -0700, Mark Townsend
<markbtownsend@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>>
>> Someone named Mark ( dunno last name ) who apparently was an oracle
>> employee was going to try to get these types of messy implications
>> straightened out.
>>
>> What role was that guy in and has he made any progress in this area to
>> date?
>>
>
>That would be me. The contribution was the Oracle Database Licensing
>Information - see
>http://www.oracle.com/pls/db102/to_t...4199%2Ftoc.htm
>
>It should pretty much answer any questions you have. You may not always
>like the answers however.

Definitely true. Actually, the answers Oracle provides are going them
to loose customers. We can not afford to buy management packs on
behalf of every individual customer, nor can we afford to reopen
contract negotations to have customers pay for those management packs.
Thanks to Oracle's 'compliancy' actions we now have one customer
considering dumping Oracle completely. Consequently, we might loose
that customer. There might be more in the near future, if Oracle
continues with compliancy actions.
I have always been amazed about Oracle not having any restriction or
key mechanism on their products. I know of a CAD software firm which
allowed you to install anything. You could install it, however without
a correct license key, it just wouldn't work.

--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

Thanks for all the help.
KInd regards, Ana

Sybrand Bakker wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:48:16 -0700, Mark Townsend
> <markbtownsend@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> Someone named Mark ( dunno last name ) who apparently was an oracle
> >> employee was going to try to get these types of messy implications
> >> straightened out.
> >>
> >> What role was that guy in and has he made any progress in this area to
> >> date?
> >>
> >
> >That would be me. The contribution was the Oracle Database Licensing
> >Information - see
> >http://www.oracle.com/pls/db102/to_t...4199%2Ftoc.htm
> >
> >It should pretty much answer any questions you have. You may not always
> >like the answers however.
>
> Definitely true. Actually, the answers Oracle provides are going them
> to loose customers. We can not afford to buy management packs on
> behalf of every individual customer, nor can we afford to reopen
> contract negotations to have customers pay for those management packs.
> Thanks to Oracle's 'compliancy' actions we now have one customer
> considering dumping Oracle completely. Consequently, we might loose
> that customer. There might be more in the near future, if Oracle
> continues with compliancy actions.
> I have always been amazed about Oracle not having any restriction or
> key mechanism on their products. I know of a CAD software firm which
> allowed you to install anything. You could install it, however without
> a correct license key, it just wouldn't work.
>
> --
> Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

Mark Townsend wrote:
> That would be me. The contribution was the Oracle Database Licensing
> Information - see
> http://www.oracle.com/pls/db102/to_t...4199%2Ftoc.htm
>
> It should pretty much answer any questions you have. You may not always
> like the answers however.

So what happens in the case where someone is running standard edition?

Do they even have the ability to navigate thru the GUI to the
"Management Pack Access" and remove and apply access even though
standard edition people cannot purchase those options packs?

Part of what you have included seems to me at least to be more
marketing boilerplate than helpful technical information. For instance
"Oracle Database Standard Edition One delivers unprecedented ease of
use, power, and performance for workgroup, department-level, and Web
applications. From single-server environments for small business to
highly distributed branch environments, Oracle Database Standard
Edition One includes all the facilities necessary to build
business-critical applications."

Ok well how about the "ease of use"? How does one get that ease of use
if oracle does not supply ways to access critical oracle system
information?

It includes "all the facilities to build business-critical
applications?" ... as long as you don't need to monitor or make changes
to them once they are operational?

I was under the impression that what you were going to research with
your customers was if oracle had made some bad design ( or pricing )
decisions in terms of the types of monitoring 10g does, the access and
control of that monitoring thru the GUI, etc.

>From looking at the document you produced it to me at least appears as
if you have accepted and tried to put a pretty face on all the current
limitations and restrictions without regards to impact, useability, and
the ability of administrators/developers to do their jobs?

Or are there other things you are working on that are not included in
this document?

Thanks to pointing out this follow up to me

hpuxrac wrote:
> Mark Townsend wrote:
>> That would be me. The contribution was the Oracle Database Licensing
>> Information - see
>> http://www.oracle.com/pls/db102/to_t...4199%2Ftoc.htm
>>
>> It should pretty much answer any questions you have. You may not always
>> like the answers however.
>
> So what happens in the case where someone is running standard edition?

They cannot use the Diag and/or Tuning packs (or any of the other packs)
>
> Do they even have the ability to navigate thru the GUI to the
> "Management Pack Access" and remove and apply access even though
> standard edition people cannot purchase those options packs?

Probably not. I can get that fixed. It will take awhile.
>
> Part of what you have included seems to me at least to be more
> marketing boilerplate than helpful technical information. For instance
> "Oracle Database Standard Edition One delivers unprecedented ease of
> use, power, and performance for workgroup, department-level, and Web
> applications. From single-server environments for small business to
> highly distributed branch environments, Oracle Database Standard
> Edition One includes all the facilities necessary to build
> business-critical applications."

There is some 'marketing' content in the doc. It has been minimized.
>
> Ok well how about the "ease of use"? How does one get that ease of use
> if oracle does not supply ways to access critical oracle system
> information?

The general belief is that in a workgroup, departmental or branch
environment on a 2 to 4 CPU machine there is no need for the advanced
tuning capabilities that Diag and Tuning provide, and often no-one that
could make the changes anyhow. It's a tenuous belief, but one that has
been discussed repeatedly at all levels within Oracle, and is the one
that prevails.
>
> It includes "all the facilities to build business-critical
> applications?" ... as long as you don't need to monitor or make changes
> to them once they are operational?

You do not need to license a pack to monitor a database. Just to tune it.

>
> I was under the impression that what you were going to research with
> your customers was if oracle had made some bad design ( or pricing )
> decisions in terms of the types of monitoring 10g does, the access and
> control of that monitoring thru the GUI, etc.

Correct. This was done, and the decision was made. Then it was done
again, and the decision was made again.

>
>>From looking at the document you produced it to me at least appears as
> if you have accepted and tried to put a pretty face on all the current
> limitations and restrictions without regards to impact, useability, and
> the ability of administrators/developers to do their jobs?

As I said, the doc reflects the decisions that were made. I also
indicated that you may not like the decision. But they are what they are.

>
> Or are there other things you are working on that are not included in
> this document?

Oracle continuously evaluates it's products, how customers use them, the
market etc etc. So other things are always being worked on. If you are
asking me if the current set of decisions are likely to change in the
future, then my frank answer would be probably not.

Mark Townsend wrote:

> Oracle continuously evaluates it's products, how customers use them

I fully appreciate all that you wrote, though like HPUXRAC, I disagree
with some of those decisions. But one problem with the above sentence is
that evaluating how we use a product posits that we are not going to
tell Oracle we are violating a license.

I think refusing a revenue stream with Standard Edition
counter-productive. If we want to give you money ... the least you can
do is take it.

And you might be surprised at the large number of DBAs, in shops using
SE, that would say "Thank you" for access for being able to legally use
some of those built-ins.

Not, of course, that anyone ever violates the license terms. ;-)
--
Daniel Morgan
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group

DA Morgan wrote:
> Mark Townsend wrote:
>
> > Oracle continuously evaluates it's products, how customers use them
>
> I fully appreciate all that you wrote, though like HPUXRAC, I disagree
> with some of those decisions. But one problem with the above sentence is
> that evaluating how we use a product posits that we are not going to
> tell Oracle we are violating a license.
>
> I think refusing a revenue stream with Standard Edition
> counter-productive. If we want to give you money ... the least you can
> do is take it.
>
> And you might be surprised at the large number of DBAs, in shops using
> SE, that would say "Thank you" for access for being able to legally use
> some of those built-ins.

Mark noted that people who have installed standard edition are not able
to use those features at all. I don't know standard edition, have
never worked with it.

Mark's explanation seemed to mean that the OEM product under standard
doesn't include any of the screens that would violate the licensing if
you attempted to use those features under standard.

Or are you saying that "some" people can and do use those features even
though oracle doesn't allow you to license them.

If that is the case, this is really a seriously messed up situation.

hpuxrac wrote:
> DA Morgan wrote:
>> Mark Townsend wrote:
>>
>>> Oracle continuously evaluates it's products, how customers use them
>> I fully appreciate all that you wrote, though like HPUXRAC, I disagree
>> with some of those decisions. But one problem with the above sentence is
>> that evaluating how we use a product posits that we are not going to
>> tell Oracle we are violating a license.
>>
>> I think refusing a revenue stream with Standard Edition
>> counter-productive. If we want to give you money ... the least you can
>> do is take it.
>>
>> And you might be surprised at the large number of DBAs, in shops using
>> SE, that would say "Thank you" for access for being able to legally use
>> some of those built-ins.
>
> Mark noted that people who have installed standard edition are not able
> to use those features at all. I don't know standard edition, have
> never worked with it.

Not able as in it is a license violation. That is not the same as 'not
able' and in the data dictionary views don't exist.

This is analogous to the partitioning option. Oracle installs it. Oracle
uses it. You just 'can't' if you don't buy the license.
--
Daniel Morgan
University of Washington
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group

Mark Townsend wrote:
> Thanks to pointing out this follow up to me
>
> hpuxrac wrote:
> > Mark Townsend wrote:
> >> That would be me. The contribution was the Oracle Database Licensing
> >> Information - see
> >> http://www.oracle.com/pls/db102/to_t...4199%2Ftoc.htm
> >>
> >> It should pretty much answer any questions you have. You may not always
> >> like the answers however.
> >
> > So what happens in the case where someone is running standard edition?
>
> They cannot use the Diag and/or Tuning packs (or any of the other packs)
> >
> > Do they even have the ability to navigate thru the GUI to the
> > "Management Pack Access" and remove and apply access even though
> > standard edition people cannot purchase those options packs?
>
> Probably not. I can get that fixed. It will take awhile.
> >
> > Part of what you have included seems to me at least to be more
> > marketing boilerplate than helpful technical information. For instance
> > "Oracle Database Standard Edition One delivers unprecedented ease of
> > use, power, and performance for workgroup, department-level, and Web
> > applications. From single-server environments for small business to
> > highly distributed branch environments, Oracle Database Standard
> > Edition One includes all the facilities necessary to build
> > business-critical applications."
>
> There is some 'marketing' content in the doc. It has been minimized.
> >
> > Ok well how about the "ease of use"? How does one get that ease of use
> > if oracle does not supply ways to access critical oracle system
> > information?
>
> The general belief is that in a workgroup, departmental or branch
> environment on a 2 to 4 CPU machine there is no need for the advanced
> tuning capabilities that Diag and Tuning provide, and often no-one that
> could make the changes anyhow. It's a tenuous belief, but one that has
> been discussed repeatedly at all levels within Oracle, and is the one
> that prevails.

The smaller the shop/machine, the more likely they will need help
tuning. What's the first thing this group asks for when people say
they have a perf problem - an explain plan! (I hope I'm not being
confused because I usually work with 9.2, I'm assuming the drill down
to a plan is part of these packages, like DBA_SQLTUNE_PLANS. And of
course, they really need the actual plan. This should be simple,
basic, included functionality on all Oracle variants.)

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
I don't worship Jonathan. I just really like the ground he walks on.
(Tip o' the hat to Peanuts)

joel garry wrote:
> Mark Townsend wrote:
>> Thanks to pointing out this follow up to me
>>
>> hpuxrac wrote:
>>> Mark Townsend wrote:
>>>> That would be me. The contribution was the Oracle Database Licensing
>>>> Information - see
>>>> http://www.oracle.com/pls/db102/to_t...4199%2Ftoc.htm
>>>>
>>>> It should pretty much answer any questions you have. You may not always
>>>> like the answers however.
>>> So what happens in the case where someone is running standard edition?
>> They cannot use the Diag and/or Tuning packs (or any of the other packs)
>>> Do they even have the ability to navigate thru the GUI to the
>>> "Management Pack Access" and remove and apply access even though
>>> standard edition people cannot purchase those options packs?
>> Probably not. I can get that fixed. It will take awhile.
>>> Part of what you have included seems to me at least to be more
>>> marketing boilerplate than helpful technical information. For instance
>>> "Oracle Database Standard Edition One delivers unprecedented ease of
>>> use, power, and performance for workgroup, department-level, and Web
>>> applications. From single-server environments for small business to
>>> highly distributed branch environments, Oracle Database Standard
>>> Edition One includes all the facilities necessary to build
>>> business-critical applications."
>> There is some 'marketing' content in the doc. It has been minimized.
>>> Ok well how about the "ease of use"? How does one get that ease of use
>>> if oracle does not supply ways to access critical oracle system
>>> information?
>> The general belief is that in a workgroup, departmental or branch
>> environment on a 2 to 4 CPU machine there is no need for the advanced
>> tuning capabilities that Diag and Tuning provide, and often no-one that
>> could make the changes anyhow. It's a tenuous belief, but one that has
>> been discussed repeatedly at all levels within Oracle, and is the one
>> that prevails.
>
> The smaller the shop/machine, the more likely they will need help
> tuning. What's the first thing this group asks for when people say
> they have a perf problem - an explain plan! (I hope I'm not being
> confused because I usually work with 9.2, I'm assuming the drill down
> to a plan is part of these packages, like DBA_SQLTUNE_PLANS. And of
> course, they really need the actual plan. This should be simple,
> basic, included functionality on all Oracle variants.)
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> I don't worship Jonathan. I just really like the ground he walks on.
> (Tip o' the hat to Peanuts)

It is beyond my comprehension that there is any Oracle database that
couldn't, at least in theory, benefit from the DBA having access to
DBMS_ADVISOR.QUICK_TUNE.

I am usually fast to jump to Oracle's defense when people criticize
their decision making. But I can not think of a single justification
for denying access to this procedure to anyone willing to pay a license
fee.

This is not just counter-productive Mark ... it is incomprehensible.
--
Daniel Morgan
University of Washington
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group