91–100 of 143 posts
"Doesn't cost anything": This is a meme that is largely false. Any large organization will buy support for open source software which can sometimes be actually more than the cost of a database license (see Datastax and Cassandra). License, support, take your pick. It takes people to keep systems running.
I don't even know how Oracle is still the juggernaut that they are. A $10,000 dollar computer running postgres can serve a ridiculous amount of queries. I suspect the general idea is to spend huge amount of money to run incredibly inefficient SQL queries.
My reaction to this article: Mwahahaha. Although surprised it is Cassandra, and not mysql thats taking the market share. Is there some technical reason for this? I'm not intimate with what Cassandra offers.
Cassandra is a distributed database that easily scales more or less to infinity. As you add more nodes to a cluster, it automatically redistributes data throughout the cluster. It "just works", and that's pretty exciting. So Cassandra at the moment seems to be enjoying a bit of the hype cycle that MongoDB enjoyed 5 or 6 years ago. It's the thing that everyone wants to try out and get onto their resume at the moment.…
http://blog.websudos.com/2014/08/16/a-series-on-cassandra-pa...
"Duplication of data is not only possible, but it’s also encouraged and often the only way to model the SQL equivalent."
I see this phrase repeated over and over: nobody got fired for chosing Oracle, ibm, or Microsoft. I wonder: did anyone got fired for chosing Postgres, Linux, or even new and risky stuff like Mongodb or nodejs? And being told at their exit interview "you should've decided to use Oracle"? I guess tech people are fired for lack of talent in hustling company politics much often than they are for chosing a technology.
So I can totally imagine people being fired for getting in over their heads and messing something up, maybe repeatedly.
On the other hand, I've seen techs be banned from a client environment while dealing solely with proprietary software too.
It mainly talks about the database whereas Oracle does many other things these days (amongst other things some high value SaaS applications in the marketing space that can't be replaced by open source.
Also, the article criticises their growth but come on! They're the 2nd largest enterprise software company in the world - they aren't going to have the kind of 100% YoY growth that a small startup could have.
My prediction is oracle will eventually tighten down and freshen up a bit, cut some of the fat and continue to be a juggernaut for another 10 or so years at least.
(Disclaimer: I liked oracle for many years and recently used to work for and still have a soft spot for them somewhere despite their challenges :) ) Sent from mobile
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. Who is going to sign a Service Level Agreement for your postgres install? Support contracts are super important for enterprise.
EnterpriseDB? http://www.enterprisedb.com/ba/license-support-services-v3-0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not so much that someone will say "you should've used Oracle". It's that when your application is down for two days they'll say "you should've picked a vendor with 24 hour support and good penetration in the job market". Now, your Oracle-hosted application might go down for two days as well, but then people would shrug and say "sometimes this happens." To be fair to Oracle, though, it does seem to happen less of…
Oracle's database itself is superlative . It's just everything else about dealing with Oracle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oracle's database itself is superlative . It's just everything else about dealing with Oracle.
I agree with you on both counts.
I see this phrase repeated over and over: nobody got fired for chosing Oracle, ibm, or Microsoft. I wonder: did anyone got fired for chosing Postgres, Linux, or even new and risky stuff like Mongodb or nodejs? And being told at their exit interview "you should've decided to use Oracle"? I guess tech people are fired for lack of talent in hustling company politics much often than they are for chosing a technology.
From first hand experience, it is much harder to maintain a FOSS environment. It feels like putting more on the line. And I cannot deny that I do it partly out of ideological reasons. So I can totally imagine people being fired for getting in over their heads and messing something up, maybe repeatedly. On the other hand, I've seen techs be banned from a client environment while dealing solely with proprietary softwar…
I would disagree it's harder. It's trepidatious, but that's not the same.
We're in the middle of taking all our internal apps talking to a single huge Oracle database, and giving each app its own cluster of two PG boxes. Nothing has to play nice with anything else - that alone suddenly makes life ridiculously easier.
We have expensive paid Oracle support, who do PG as a sideline. But we've yet to have occasion to call them about PG.
I don't even know how Oracle is still the juggernaut that they are. A $10,000 dollar computer running postgres can serve a ridiculous amount of queries. I suspect the general idea is to spend huge amount of money to run incredibly inefficient SQL queries.
For what I see in the entreprise world they play it like that : 1. lock entreprise in a 5 year contract. 2. when contract is about to expire lower prices to match wathever other companies are offering for the next 5 years + migration cost. 3. Win the deal as you offer the best value for the money : same ammount + no risk. 4. repeat This is the main reason why you can see companies running on mainframe in 2015.