Re: RBO to CBO

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:41d7a87a$1_1_at_127.0.0.1...
> Sybrand Bakker wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 11:10:07 -0800, DA Morgan
>> <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But given that Oracle doesn't charge for upgrades if you have a current
>>>support contract what is the downside to running the upgrade script and
>>>moving up with versions after they have been tested and shown to be
>>>stable?
>>
>>
>> The downside is you loose support of the third-party vendor, supplying
>> the app.
>> Many vendors still don't support 9i, or they force you to upgrade
>> their app too.
>> Losing support by the application vendor is usually considered to be a
>> show stopper.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
>
> With regret I must agree with you. Lately I have been advising clients,
> during negoatiations with software vendors, to insist that the following
> clause, or something like it, be added to the contract.
>
> "<Vendor> agrees that they will always support their application on a
> version of Oracle's database under full support from Oracle
> Corporation."
>
> Very few sales-types are capable of walking away from a six-figure+
> sale that may well go their competition. And once they've signed ...
> the vendor is stuck providing the support. The truth is there is always
> another vendor, a bit hungrier, willing to meet the condition and they
> all know it.

Interesting approach. Have you tried approaching Oracle and insisting on a contract term like

"Oracle agrees that the software is purchased for the purpose of enabling the following applications <list> and agrees to support the supplied software version (x.x) as long as it is supported by <application vendor>". ?

There are plenty of other hungry RDBMS vendors out there after all, and most of them can do the job.

-- 
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com