Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Stop reverse engineering our code”

blogs.oracle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 358 posts

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#191

Post by plorkyeran »

Flenser wrote: post #109
waihtis wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've recently read "The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison *God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison" and while it was published over 10 years ago, this sounds exactly like a lot of things that happened in the book. The Oracle corporate culture seems to basically be reflection of Larry Ellison's megalomania. Their will to rack sales is just insatiable.

You might enjoy this talk by Bryan Cantrill, where he describes the Oracle acquisition of Sun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=34m7s > "what you think of Oracle is even truer than you think it is. There has been no entity in human history with less complexity or nuance to it than Oracle" > "this company is about one man and his alter ego and what he wants to inflict upon humanity" Edit: And how could I…

My favorite quote from that talk has always been:

> You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#192

Post by Retric »

greggyb wrote: post #169
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to a prominent tech school that adopted an Oracle platform for student course management in my last few years. I won't mince words: it was a piece of shit, and my school's administrators ate shit by agreeing to a contract that forbid them from making any changes to Oracle's broken system. Now I work in college administration and we have to deal with the very same pile of junk. Someone once told me that Larry E…

You might want to fact check yourself on Rockefeller: Founded 1870, antitrust 1911: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil Crude prices in that time frame (and beyond): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_Prices_Since_186... Production in that time frame (having trouble finding a nice long time-series chart): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_petroleum_indus... If we want to make a strong claim…

You’re ignoring opportunity costs. Standard Oil maintained high margins though monopoly pricing.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#193

Post by smithkl42 »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #23

So, I disagree with the poster on a bunch of things here (no surprise, really). But: this is authentic. This is what we (i.e. hackers) are always claiming we want. Someone speaking her mind, shooting from the hip, etc. Not an anodyne blob of corporate-speak: this is an opinion, stated pretty clearly, and backed up with fighting words. You'd expect: "Our legal team has advised us to remind consultants that they are bo…

FWIW, I have no objection to the folksy tone. It's more to the opinions that she's expressing, and worse, to their consequence. The fact that Oracle objects to anyone trying to figure out where the holes are in their software says a lot about why there are so many holes in their software.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#194

Post by Flenser »

twoodfin wrote: post #175
Flenser wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might enjoy this talk by Bryan Cantrill, where he describes the Oracle acquisition of Sun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=34m7s > "what you think of Oracle is even truer than you think it is. There has been no entity in human history with less complexity or nuance to it than Oracle" > "this company is about one man and his alter ego and what he wants to inflict upon humanity" Edit: And how could I…

Hadn't seen the second talk, which is (no surprise) technically interesting as well as highly entertaining. Thanks!

YouTube should suggest some of his other talks too. There's more oracle stuff in the illumous day and Surge talks, and he also has very humorous segments in the Surge 2013 and 2014 Lighting talks.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#195

Post by greggyb »

bunderbunder wrote: post #184
greggyb wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to fact check yourself on Rockefeller: Founded 1870, antitrust 1911: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil Crude prices in that time frame (and beyond): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_Prices_Since_186... Production in that time frame (having trouble finding a nice long time-series chart): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_petroleum_indus... If we want to make a strong claim…

According to the very Wikipedia article you link, Standard Oil was found guilty of anticompetitive actions. Note that monopolistic behavior does not necessarily imply rising prices. See: Wal-Mart. Also see this quote from that Wikipedia article again: "The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Co. charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where the…

I believe we are going to be at an impasse here, but the quote you extracted illustrates the point I made, that Standard Oil acted as a competitive firm. We expect to see profit driven to zero in a competitive market, and that is what we saw in Standard Oil's pricing.

In cases where there was little competition, that clearly indicates an area where the costs of the trade were such that the market price would be higher.

The former is strictly competitive and the latter is strictly not anti-competitive.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#196

Post by jnbiche »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #102
jnbiche wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> open source is not always the solution and reverse engineering something, consumes way more energy for the problems it actually solves. You think customers are reverse engineering Oracle products for fun ? They're doing it because there's a problem somewhere, they've filed a bug report and not got a satisfactory result, and so they have to go pay an expensive consultant to try and track down the problem for them wi…

What's wrong with reversing for fun? It's how progress of technology happens.

I think reversing for fun is great! But it's pretty unlikely that Oracle customers are doing it for this reason. Instead, I suspect their reversing is borne of desperation.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#197

Post by XMPPwocky »

ikeboy wrote: post #93

>We will also not provide credit in any advisories we might issue. You can’t really expect us to say “thank you for breaking the license agreement.” Well, Apple does (for jailbreak exploits). >I am not dissing bug bounties, just noting that on a strictly economic basis, why would I throw a lot of money at 3% of the problem Uh ... You don't think that percentage will increase if you offer bounties?

>>I am not dissing bug bounties, just noting that on a strictly economic basis, why would I throw a lot of money at 3% of the problem >Uh ... You don't think that percentage will increase if you offer bounties?

And if it doesn't, well, they don't pay out much. It's not like bug bounties consist of just throwing money at random people and hoping they find vulns; you pay for results. That's sort of the point.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#198

Post by DannyBee »

Except, uh, in plenty of countries, those anti-reverse engineering clauses are void as a matter of public policy.

And in any product that uses LGPL code, for example, it's actually a license violation to forbid customer modification and reverse engineering for the purpose of debugging those modifications.

(Though, admittedly, everyone always violates this term)

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#200

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

greggyb wrote: post #195
bunderbunder wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the very Wikipedia article you link, Standard Oil was found guilty of anticompetitive actions. Note that monopolistic behavior does not necessarily imply rising prices. See: Wal-Mart. Also see this quote from that Wikipedia article again: "The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Co. charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where the…

I believe we are going to be at an impasse here, but the quote you extracted illustrates the point I made, that Standard Oil acted as a competitive firm. We expect to see profit driven to zero in a competitive market, and that is what we saw in Standard Oil's pricing. In cases where there was little competition, that clearly indicates an area where the costs of the trade were such that the market price would be highe…

I think we're going on the wrong track. What I meant was that Rockefeller and Ellison both show that wealth doesn't always come from producing value, but can also be made by abusing market dominance.

Arguing the nuances of Standard Oil's behavior is a moot point when the Supreme Court settled that issue in 1911.

Post reply on HN