Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Database Business Problems at Oracle?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the good-but-not-good-enough dept.

abb_road writes "Wall Street responded to yesterday's report of a 42% rise in profits by pushing Oracle's stock down. Despite a 77% increase in applications business, investors are worried that Oracle's core database business remains comparatively stagnant. Though Ellison claims that the DB business will grow in double digits over the next few years, it seems that more companies are switching to open source rather than paying Oracle $40,000 a processor."

2 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. I don't know about open source... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But my company is looking closely at SqlServer right now. We just went through an Oracle license Inquisition and like the article said, it's about $40k a license or just under $1000 per named user. OTOH we can buy a SqlServer license for around $5k and have as many users as we want. T-Sql is a poor replacement for PL/SQL, but money talks.

    Before you go all Slashbot on me, realize that my company is very conservative with respect to technology, so Open Source is unfortunately not an option here...

  2. Postgresql vs. Oracle flame-war.... GO! by shilad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've heard a lot of debate about Postgresql vs. MySql that doesn't need to be re-hashed for the 1000'th time. On the other hand, I haven't heard much on Oracle vs. Postgresql. I have used Postgresql quite a bit, and think it's wonderful.

    What is Postgresql missing that Oracle has? What does Oracle have that Postgres is missing? When do these features matter?

    Let the flaming begin...