“The only thing that scales better than an Oracle database is their licensing cost! “

- heard years ago from a friend. Not sure of the origination of the quote.

Whenever I see any technology news about Oracle, I mentally translate it as "Larry Ellison needs a bigger yacht".

Oracle doesn't charge per CPU it charges per core. Enjoy paying for 4240 cores!

Aha - I stubled upon this https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-10872 yesterday and thought "why would they want to achieve compatibility with Oracle DBs?" => now (I think that) I do understand that it would be to offer an alternative that would provide the same capabilities (but maybe with a different performance/reliability/whatever) for a different price, for any software that Oracle sells which wants to run on an Oracle DB, right?

Is the process "Google vs. Oracle about Java" (I understood that it's about the functions/methods declarations and not about the code itself) similar to a theoretical similar situation where DB XXXX would provide the same functions as the ones provided by the Oracle DB?

It's 4240 cores total, Oracle Enterprise DB is $47,500 per core. So ~$201M.

Java SE is priced per processor. $17.50 per month at that CPU count. And so, a relative bargain per year at 17.50 x 12 x 1060 = ~$222k / year.

I believe there's a scaling factor, so lower powered cores like this are charged as a fraction of a Xeon you'd normally use.