31–40 of 238 posts
Is it pure C? Of course, building a DB is not something you worry too much everyday (unless you're developing it), but it seems an interesting fact.
It has been known for DECADES that Oracle is outrageously expensive compared to the competition. But the unwillingness of larger companies to go with open-source databases which have no multi-billion dollar company behind them has kept Oracle in the saddle all these years.
I think that mission critical, legacy systems from a time before there was big OSS acceptance at the CTO level is the main reason. I’m not sure how many greenfield projects are using Oracle, but I’d expect that is rapidly decreasing over time. However, if you’ve had an Oracle db running for 20 years, and the cost of screwing up a migration starts at 9 figures, and runs into the 10 figures, then Oracle have you by the…
Oracle is a tried and tested safe bet when implementing corp wide, multi year projects. The HN crowd won't like it (and for good reason) but CTOs will always bet on name recognition when millions or billions are on the line.
Copying from https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12115397/is-it-against-l... : The standard license ( http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/licenses/standard-license-... ) you agree to when you download software from the Oracle Technology Network (OTN) does state that you're not allowed to disclose benchmarks. You may not: > - disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior consent. I sadly suspect that…
Don't think installation size or length of time taken to set up the program really qualify as a "program benchmark test", so he should be fine
>” create stand alone database: ~30m” Something is oddly wrong in his tests if it took him 30 minutes to create an oracle database.
I bet its pretty close to 30m based on experience.
Copying from https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12115397/is-it-against-l... : The standard license ( http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/licenses/standard-license-... ) you agree to when you download software from the Oracle Technology Network (OTN) does state that you're not allowed to disclose benchmarks. You may not: > - disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior consent. I sadly suspect that…
What are the damage claims for something like this, if any? Surely neither side would want to litigate this.
This is the well-known DeWitt clause, so named because Oracle crafted it to squelch database research being performed by Dr. David DeWitt. I believe these clauses should be clearly ruled as illegal, but to my knowledge they still persist. Details here: https://dwheeler.com/essays/dewitt-clause.html
Copying from https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12115397/is-it-against-l... : The standard license ( http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/licenses/standard-license-... ) you agree to when you download software from the Oracle Technology Network (OTN) does state that you're not allowed to disclose benchmarks. You may not: > - disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior consent. I sadly suspect that…
What are the damage claims for something like this, if any? Surely neither side would want to litigate this.
Larry would just rotate the banner, mission accomplished, no fine with a retraction.
Since competitors make bank selling Oracle solutions and can’t publish a bmark w/o his permission he doesn’t need to litigate. It’s his ocean.
Copying from https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12115397/is-it-against-l... : The standard license ( http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/licenses/standard-license-... ) you agree to when you download software from the Oracle Technology Network (OTN) does state that you're not allowed to disclose benchmarks. You may not: > - disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior consent. I sadly suspect that…
> any program benchmark tests Don't think installation size or length of time taken to set up the program really qualify as a "program benchmark test", so he should be fine
That's not a very useful comparison. Databases are made to execute queries, not to install them. The only useful metric is performance and features (and price, of course). Sure, Oracle is bloated and pain to manage, but if it works faster, provides unique features and costs less in the end, people will use it.
Initial installation may not matter much but long maintenance windows directly lead to higher costs. If every patch requires a 60-90 minute downtime, you're going to pay for that in production deploy time.
It has been known for DECADES that Oracle is outrageously expensive compared to the competition. But the unwillingness of larger companies to go with open-source databases which have no multi-billion dollar company behind them has kept Oracle in the saddle all these years.
Honest question, what is that with former Oracle clients and SUSE LInux? Did the Novell ownership make it similar/alternative to Oracle stuff? Or is it just that it was the first linux with a paid support option and those folks likely used it earlier because of this? Asking for people that actually use openSUSE today, not other pundits with baseless hypothesis like myself :)