Should Dual Cores Require Dual Licenses? 425
sebFlyte writes "The multi-core debate continues. HP and Intel have laid into Oracle and (to a lesser extent) BEA over their their treatment of multi-core processers. Oracle's argument that 'a core is a CPU and therefore you should pay us all your money' isn't a popular one, it would seem. What does Oracle's stubbornness imply for the industry as a whole, with multicore chips coming to the fore so strongly?"
Processers? (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't know oracle even looked at processors (Score:5, Funny)
Oracle's salesman rallying cry (Score:2, Funny)
I offer a better deal (Score:2, Funny)
I was going to charge on a per transistor basis but decided against it.
Yeah I realize I wont be utilizing all the logic gates per transaction
What about Hyperthreading? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I didn't know oracle even looked at processors (Score:1, Funny)
Pants start coming off at step 2.
Re:BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Agree, or agree not. There is no should. (Score:1, Funny)
Well, then why should customers halve their license fees by simply upgrading to faster CPUs?
Re:There _Are_ Other DBMS's (Score:3, Funny)
Re:There _Are_ Other DBMS's (Score:3, Funny)
Oracle and friends can make the following convincing argument to PHB's....
implications? (Score:3, Funny)
more marketshare.
Re: There _Are_ Other DBMS's (Score:3, Funny)