Sybase NNTP forums - End Of Life (EOL)

The NNTP forums from Sybase - forums.sybase.com - are now closed.

All new questions should be directed to the appropriate forum at the SAP Community Network (SCN).

Individual products have links to the respective forums on SCN, or you can go to SCN and search for your product in the search box (upper right corner) to find your specific developer center.

Sybase Licensing Issues: Sybase, Licenses, Solaris Containers, Multi-Core Servers

8 posts in General Discussion Last posting was on 2009-07-30 10:25:29.0Z
Andrew M. Posted on 2009-07-27 06:21:05.0Z
From: "Andrew M." <andrew.me.ph@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.general
Subject: Sybase Licensing Issues: Sybase, Licenses, Solaris Containers, Multi-Core Servers
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <165f52db-400d-4694-8cd9-14de7b063c67@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.90.88.53
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248675665 31476 127.0.0.1 (27 Jul 2009 06:21:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 06:21:05 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com; posting-host=194.90.88.53; posting-account=cGzI1woAAABkmcmVhu7MYCAUwZR8KLbP
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008051206 Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master!newssvr.sybase.com!news-sj-1.sprintlink.net!news-peer1.sprintlink.net!nntp1.phx1.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.general:28052
Article PK: 77299

I have been struggling with Sybase representatives over the issue of
Sybase licensing for more than half a year now - all with no avail.
The market has long ago moved into multi-core, multi-container
environment - consolidating everything, maximizing resource usage,
moving from single-core to multi-core servers. Somehow, Sybase seems
to lag behind all its competitors in the field and obstinately refuses
to recognize the market change.

Has anyone tried to convince Sybase or its local representatives that
capped Solaris Containers are as valid for licensing as DSD? We are
trying to consolidate our Sybase environment onto a pair of strong
servers, partitioned using Solaris 10 Containers semantics and get
stuck because Sybase refuses to recognize containers as hard
partitioning. Oracle recognizes it - see e.g. https://www.sun.com/offers/docs/820-7195.pdf
and http://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2005_dec/multicoreupdate_dec2005.html.
Microsoft recognizes it (vm) - see e.g.
http://www.microsoft.com/Sqlserver/2005/en/us/special-considerations.aspx.
Sybase - teases its customers that the option exists, but that we
cannot use it in Production Environment - see e.g.
http://www.sybase.com/content/1041285/Sybase_L02899_ASE_Solaris-063006.pdf
and http://www.sybase.com/files/Legal_Docs/ASE-v15.0.x-All-Editions-PSLT.pdf.

Does anybody else have the same set of issues that I do? I will be
very glad to collect customer stories from as many customers as
possible and approach Sybase with a request to change the licensing
policy as soon as possible. I keep my company running on Sybase for
more than a decade. It becomes more and more difficult to convince
the enterprise as to the advantages of running Sybase - and not MSSQL,
for example. Pricing is the issue. Performance too.

If anyone is willing to join me - will appreciate.

Andrew M.


Alberto Posted on 2009-07-27 21:45:31.0Z
Message-ID: <4A6E2007.8050105@gmail.com>
From: Alberto <Alberto.daSilva@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.general
To: "Andrew M." <andrew.me.ph@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Sybase Licensing Issues: Sybase, Licenses, Solaris Containers, Multi-Core Servers
References: <165f52db-400d-4694-8cd9-14de7b063c67@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <165f52db-400d-4694-8cd9-14de7b063c67@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 27 Jul 2009 14:45:31 -0700
X-Trace: forums-3-dub.sybase.com 1248731131 10.22.241.152 (27 Jul 2009 14:45:31 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 27 Jul 2009 14:45:31 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 87
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master!forums-3-dub.sybase.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.general:28056
Article PK: 77305


Andrew M. wrote:
> I have been struggling with Sybase representatives over the issue of
> Sybase licensing for more than half a year now - all with no avail.
> The market has long ago moved into multi-core, multi-container
> environment - consolidating everything, maximizing resource usage,
> moving from single-core to multi-core servers. Somehow, Sybase seems
> to lag behind all its competitors in the field and obstinately refuses
> to recognize the market change.
>
> Has anyone tried to convince Sybase or its local representatives that
> capped Solaris Containers are as valid for licensing as DSD? We are
> trying to consolidate our Sybase environment onto a pair of strong
> servers, partitioned using Solaris 10 Containers semantics and get
> stuck because Sybase refuses to recognize containers as hard
> partitioning. Oracle recognizes it - see e.g. https://www.sun.com/offers/docs/820-7195.pdf
> and http://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2005_dec/multicoreupdate_dec2005.html.
> Microsoft recognizes it (vm) - see e.g.
> http://www.microsoft.com/Sqlserver/2005/en/us/special-considerations.aspx.
> Sybase - teases its customers that the option exists, but that we
> cannot use it in Production Environment - see e.g.
> http://www.sybase.com/content/1041285/Sybase_L02899_ASE_Solaris-063006.pdf
> and http://www.sybase.com/files/Legal_Docs/ASE-v15.0.x-All-Editions-PSLT.pdf.
>
> Does anybody else have the same set of issues that I do? I will be
> very glad to collect customer stories from as many customers as
> possible and approach Sybase with a request to change the licensing
> policy as soon as possible. I keep my company running on Sybase for
> more than a decade. It becomes more and more difficult to convince
> the enterprise as to the advantages of running Sybase - and not MSSQL,
> for example. Pricing is the issue. Performance too.
>
> If anyone is willing to join me - will appreciate.
>
> Andrew M.

"Pricing is the issue. Performance too."

Same here.

I work for a small bank, and it's an uphill battle convincing management
that ASE is still viable - ASE is classified as "legacy".

Oracle, MSSQL or PostgreSQL are all recommended before ASE because of
costs and/or lack of features in ASE.

All new projects are targeted at Oracle, MSSQL or PostgeSQL.
Many vendor applications no longer support ASE.
As new versions of commercial products are released,
ASE is dropped from the support matrix and we are forced to migrate.

Sybase.com think that ASE is competitive and can charge more than
Oracle, MSSQL or PostgreSQL, but ASE lacks major features compared to
Oracle, MSSQL or PostgreSQL.

The few features that are there, are extra cost
Eg MSSQL has database mirroring - don't even try that with ASE without
the extra cost of RepServer.

Sybase.com need to take their ASE pricing head out of the sand (ostrich
technique to avoid danger) before they loose even more market share.

As an example of mind share, look at the number of messages posted on
this forum - almost none, then have a look at forums for Oracle, MSSQL
or PostgreSQL.

You might find the following video interesting:
Wisconsin State Court moves from Sybase to PostgreSQL.
http://hosting3.epresence.tv/fosslc/1/watch/122.aspx?q=postgresql

I don't seem to see any cases of customers moving from Oracle, MSSQL,
PostgreSQL to ASE.

During last year, Sybase.com changed licensing conditions making
ASE even less cost effective.
eg. Network Seat Option
Standby ASE costs the same as Production
Minimum of 20 Seats per Core.
Linux and Windows which were less, now same as other platforms.

Only recently, did Sybase start "core" pricing - 50% less for "B" CPU's.

Sad to say, promoting ASE in my organization is hard work, feels like
I'm flogging a dead horse.

Any help, like competitive pricing would be welcome.

Alberto


Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase] Posted on 2009-07-28 02:26:24.0Z
From: "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]" <jason@froebe.net>
Organization: TeamSybase
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.general
Subject: Re: Sybase Licensing Issues: Sybase, Licenses, Solaris Containers,Multi-Core Servers
References: <165f52db-400d-4694-8cd9-14de7b063c67@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> <4A6E2007.8050105@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A6E2007.8050105@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <4a6e61d0@forums-3-dub.sybase.com>
Date: 27 Jul 2009 19:26:24 -0700
X-Trace: forums-3-dub.sybase.com 1248747984 10.22.241.152 (27 Jul 2009 19:26:24 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 27 Jul 2009 19:26:24 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 8
X-Authenticated-User: TeamSybase
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master!forums-3-dub.sybase.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.general:28057
Article PK: 77303

Last I heard, Oracle reverted back to charging per # of cores on the
machine not how many you use.

In any case, my personal opinion is that we should be charged per engine
that we enable within ASE rather than what capabilities the hardware
has. That's just *my* opinion though.

jason


Andrew M. Posted on 2009-07-28 14:30:14.0Z
From: "Andrew M." <andrew.me.ph@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.general
Subject: Re: Sybase Licensing Issues: Sybase, Licenses, Solaris Containers, Multi-Core Servers
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <74cf93c2-c4b7-43ec-9314-a7cf0401095b@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
References: <165f52db-400d-4694-8cd9-14de7b063c67@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> <4A6E2007.8050105@gmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.90.88.53
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248791415 5240 127.0.0.1 (28 Jul 2009 14:30:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:30:15 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=194.90.88.53; posting-account=cGzI1woAAABkmcmVhu7MYCAUwZR8KLbP
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008051206 Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master!newssvr.sybase.com!news-sj-1.sprintlink.net!news-peer1.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.yul.equant.net!novia!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.general:28061
Article PK: 77306


On Jul 27, 11:45 pm, Alberto <Alberto.daSi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew M. wrote:
> > I have been struggling with Sybase representatives over the issue of
> > Sybase licensing for more than half a year now - all with no avail.
> > The market has long ago moved into multi-core, multi-container
> > environment - consolidating everything, maximizing resource usage,
> > moving from single-core to multi-core servers.  Somehow, Sybase seems
> > to lag behind all its competitors in the field and obstinately refuses
> > to recognize the market change.
>
> > Has anyone tried to convince Sybase or its local representatives that
> > capped Solaris Containers are as valid for licensing as DSD?  We are
> > trying to consolidate our Sybase environment onto a pair of strong
> > servers, partitioned using Solaris 10 Containers semantics and get
> > stuck because Sybase refuses to recognize containers as hard
> > partitioning.  Oracle recognizes it - see e.g.https://www.sun.com/offers/docs/820-7195.pdf
> > andhttp://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2005_dec/multicoreupdate_dec200....
> > Microsoft recognizes it (vm) - see e.g.
> >http://www.microsoft.com/Sqlserver/2005/en/us/special-considerations.....
> > Sybase - teases its customers that the option exists, but that we
> > cannot use it in Production Environment - see e.g.
> >http://www.sybase.com/content/1041285/Sybase_L02899_ASE_Solaris-06300...
> > andhttp://www.sybase.com/files/Legal_Docs/ASE-v15.0.x-All-Editions-PSLT.pdf.
>
> > Does anybody else have the same set of issues that I do?  I will be
> > very glad to collect customer stories from as many customers as
> > possible and approach Sybase with a request to change the licensing
> > policy as soon as possible.  I keep my company running on Sybase for
> > more than a decade.  It becomes more and more difficult to convince
> > the enterprise as to the advantages of running Sybase - and not MSSQL,
> > for example.  Pricing is the issue.  Performance too.
>
> > If anyone is willing to join me - will appreciate.
>
> > Andrew M.
>
> "Pricing is the issue.  Performance too."
>
> Same here.
>
> I work for a small bank, and it's an uphill battle convincing management
> that ASE is still viable - ASE is classified as "legacy".
>
> Oracle, MSSQL or PostgreSQL are all recommended before ASE because of
> costs and/or lack of features in ASE.
>
> All new projects are targeted at Oracle, MSSQL or PostgeSQL.
> Many vendor applications no longer support ASE.
> As new versions of commercial products are released,
> ASE is dropped from the support matrix and we are forced to migrate.
>
> Sybase.com think that ASE is competitive and can charge more than
> Oracle, MSSQL or PostgreSQL, but ASE lacks major features compared to
> Oracle, MSSQL or PostgreSQL.
>
> The few features that are there, are extra cost
> Eg MSSQL has database mirroring - don't even try that with ASE without
> the extra cost of RepServer.
>
> Sybase.com need to take their ASE pricing head out of the sand (ostrich
> technique to avoid danger) before they loose even more market share.
>
> As an example of mind share, look at the number of messages posted on
> this forum - almost none, then have a look at forums for Oracle, MSSQL
> or PostgreSQL.
>
> You might find the following video interesting:
> Wisconsin State Court moves from Sybase to PostgreSQL.http://hosting3.epresence.tv/fosslc/1/watch/122.aspx?q=postgresql
>
> I don't seem to see any cases of customers moving from Oracle, MSSQL,
> PostgreSQL to ASE.
>
> During last year, Sybase.com changed licensing conditions making
> ASE even less cost effective.
> eg. Network Seat Option
>      Standby ASE costs the same as Production
>      Minimum of 20 Seats per Core.
>      Linux and Windows which were less, now same as other platforms.
>
> Only recently, did Sybase start "core" pricing - 50% less for "B" CPU's.
>
> Sad to say, promoting ASE in my organization is hard work, feels like
> I'm flogging a dead horse.
>
> Any help, like competitive pricing would be welcome.
>
> Alberto

Did you succeed to receive a CORE licenses from SYBASE for ASE
Enterprise edition in PRODUCTION environment?


Alberto Posted on 2009-07-28 16:40:31.0Z
Sender: 5c53.4a6ee288.1804289383@sybase.com
From: Alberto
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.general
Subject: Re: Sybase Licensing Issues: Sybase, Licenses, Solaris Containers, Multi-Core Servers
X-Mailer: WebNews to Mail Gateway v1.1t
Message-ID: <4a6f29ff.1818.1681692777@sybase.com>
References: <74cf93c2-c4b7-43ec-9314-a7cf0401095b@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: forums-3-dub.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: forums-3-dub.sybase.com
Date: 28 Jul 2009 09:40:31 -0700
X-Trace: forums-3-dub.sybase.com 1248799231 10.22.241.188 (28 Jul 2009 09:40:31 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 28 Jul 2009 09:40:31 -0700, forums-3-dub.sybase.com
Lines: 37
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master!forums-3-dub.sybase.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.general:28064
Article PK: 77314


> On Jul 27, 11:45pm, Alberto <Alberto.daSi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote: Andrew M. wrote:
> > > I have been struggling with Sybase representatives

SNIP

> Did you succeed to receive a CORE licenses from SYBASE for
> ASE Enterprise edition in PRODUCTION environment?

We are licensed Server/Network seat model.

We have 30 odd servers, mix of 2 CPU/Quad Core and 4
CPU/Quad Core, but only about 800 users.
Licenses were bough before the change to minimum of 20 Seats
per core.

The CPU/Core license is not practical for us.
We have issues when trying to buy options, as they are
licensed per CPU and exceed the cost of the server license.

We use alternative technology to implement features that ASE
has.
eg. MS-ILM to synchronize password from AD to ASE instead of
ASE-DIRS (sp_ldapadmin)
Veritas Cluster (fail over only) instead of ASE-CE.
Scripted log shipping instead of rep-server.
MS-SQL2008 instead of ASE15.
etc.

The effect is that Sybase.com gets zero income on options.
If the options were priced reasonably, then Sybase.com would
get the revenue.

Seems that Sybase.com would rather get zero than listen to
the community.

Alberto


Frank Posted on 2009-07-29 13:35:33.0Z
From: Frank <li_zhi_99@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.general
Subject: Re: Sybase Licensing Issues: Sybase, Licenses, Solaris Containers, Multi-Core Servers
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <7da2738b-6bd4-406c-b0c6-c0eed5cec12f@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
References: <74cf93c2-c4b7-43ec-9314-a7cf0401095b@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <4a6f29ff.1818.1681692777@sybase.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.166.14.237
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248874533 28308 127.0.0.1 (29 Jul 2009 13:35:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:35:33 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=199.166.14.237; posting-account=BWMTcAoAAABq3Jo-gmhs_YEf6UQLx2u5
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master!newssvr.sybase.com!news-sj-1.sprintlink.net!news-peer1.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.yul.equant.net!novia!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.general:28069
Article PK: 77315

I had some bad experience with Sybase rep too. They only care about
short term return. I am struggling to figure out how they can compete
with Oracle, IBM for high end and MySQL, PostgreSQL for low end. I am
using Sybase all my career. I think if they don't change their license
strategy, Sybase will die sooner than we thought.


Andrew M. Posted on 2009-07-30 10:24:38.0Z
From: "Andrew M." <andrew.me.ph@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.general
Subject: Re: Sybase Licensing Issues: Sybase, Licenses, Solaris Containers, Multi-Core Servers
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <759ae9e4-c4bd-4a89-be8c-38aaaa67b093@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <74cf93c2-c4b7-43ec-9314-a7cf0401095b@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <4a6f29ff.1818.1681692777@sybase.com> <7da2738b-6bd4-406c-b0c6-c0eed5cec12f@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.90.88.53
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248949478 3797 127.0.0.1 (30 Jul 2009 10:24:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:24:38 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=194.90.88.53; posting-account=cGzI1woAAABkmcmVhu7MYCAUwZR8KLbP
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008051206 Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master!newssvr.sybase.com!news-sj-1.sprintlink.net!news-peer1.sprintlink.net!nntp1.phx1.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.general:28070
Article PK: 77317


On Jul 29, 3:35 pm, Frank <li_zhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I had some bad experience with Sybase rep too. They only care about
> short term return. I am struggling to figure out how they can compete
> with Oracle, IBM for high end and MySQL, PostgreSQL for low end. I am
> using Sybase all my career. I think if they don't change their license
> strategy, Sybase will die sooner than we thought.

Unless someone "shakes" them well, I think. Making a move to MSSQL
server is not very complicated, since the code differences are not
very big. I'm afraid Sybase forgets that it is not alone on the
market - which is a pity. There are a lot of good mechanism in the
support field, and the product is very intelligent (although in
performance there are disadvantages in certain field). Sometime bad
marketing policy may kill the product. I hope it will not happen with
ASE/RS.


Andrew M. Posted on 2009-07-30 10:25:29.0Z
From: "Andrew M." <andrew.me.ph@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.general
Subject: Re: Sybase Licensing Issues: Sybase, Licenses, Solaris Containers, Multi-Core Servers
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <4484cba2-b51d-4adc-a8fe-14562ebbd929@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
References: <74cf93c2-c4b7-43ec-9314-a7cf0401095b@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <4a6f29ff.1818.1681692777@sybase.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.90.88.53
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248949529 17228 127.0.0.1 (30 Jul 2009 10:25:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:25:29 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=194.90.88.53; posting-account=cGzI1woAAABkmcmVhu7MYCAUwZR8KLbP
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008051206 Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master!newssvr.sybase.com!news-sj-1.sprintlink.net!news-peer1.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.yul.equant.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nlpi057.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.general:28071
Article PK: 77318


On Jul 28, 6:40 pm, Alberto wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 11:45pm, Alberto <Alberto.daSi...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote: Andrew M. wrote:
> > > > I have been struggling with Sybase representatives
>
> SNIP
>
> > Did you succeed to receive a CORE licenses from SYBASE for
> > ASE Enterprise edition in PRODUCTION environment?
>
> We are licensed Server/Network seat model.
>
> We have 30 odd servers, mix of 2 CPU/Quad Core and 4
> CPU/Quad Core, but only about 800 users.
> Licenses were bough before the change to minimum of 20 Seats
> per core.
>
> The CPU/Core license is not practical for us.
> We have issues when trying to buy options, as they are
> licensed per CPU and exceed the cost of the server license.
>
> We use alternative technology to implement features that ASE
> has.
> eg. MS-ILM to synchronize password from AD to ASE instead of
> ASE-DIRS (sp_ldapadmin)
> Veritas Cluster (fail over only) instead of ASE-CE.
> Scripted log shipping instead of rep-server.
> MS-SQL2008 instead of ASE15.
> etc.
>
> The effect is that Sybase.com gets zero income on options.
> If the options were priced reasonably, then Sybase.com would
> get the revenue.
>
> Seems that Sybase.com would rather get zero than listen to
> the community.
>
> Alberto

We cant afford that, unfortunately. We are open to the web.