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

231–240 of 358 posts

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#231

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

greggyb wrote: post #210
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll go out on a limb here and assume that you agree just as vehemently with the ruling in Citizens United?

Apples and oranges - I'm not getting into this.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#233

Post by victorNicollet »

moron4hire wrote: post #223
victorNicollet wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be pedantic, 1.5e8 carries additional information about accuracy: $150,000,000 ± $5,000,000. By contrast, 1.50e8 would be ten times as accurate, and so on. Of course, accuracy is hardly relevant here.

s/accuracy/precision Sorry, I don't usually try to be pedantic, but when the conversation is already about nitpicking, I think it's necessary. Significant figures are precision, not accuracy. Accuracy is "being in the ballpark". Precision is "tight groups".

I'm sorry for the confusion. English is not my first language, and I resorted to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision to pick between "accuracy" and "precision".

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#234

Post by CyberpunkDad »

bradleyankrom wrote: post #91
duncan_bayne wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The author is clearly wrong on a bunch of fronts; I don't think anyone here would argue otherwise. I just don't understand the hatred directed towards someone who's writing without the usual corporate brain-mouth filter ...

The tone obfuscates the message. I don't think it's hatred so much as bewilderment that someone in an executive position at a huge tech company would present an argument about customer behavior this way.

I felt embarrassment for the writer and Oracle. The fact that it was taken down confirms they felt that way as well upon reflection. It wasn't professional. Just my opinion.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#235

Post by engi_nerd »

copsarebastards wrote: post #173
bmir-alum-007 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stanford was taken to the cleaners to the tune of $1.5 x 10^8 USD in the deployment of Oracle Financials and related products via endless "consultant implementation" charges that didn't really deliver much value, were rarely on schedule or on budget. Oracle's enterprise calendaring program was totally inadequate and had UX that made most point-of-sale systems look effortless by contrast. Also, the assets managing app…

I worked for a large company which will remain unnamed, who a few years after purchasing a 12-year unlimited support contract, switched to using Postgres. Read: they were already locked in to paying for Oracle's most expensive contract for 12 years, regardless of what services they used. In short, they concluded that due to the cost of developing for Oracle, it was cheaper to migrate to Postgres than to continue usin…

It is somewhat rare that companies will recognize the fallacy of sunk costs ("We've already spent so much, we need to do this"). I think the world would be a much different place if we could somehow overcome this cognitive error.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#236

Post by vetinari »

Keyframe wrote: post #73
dagw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but this is a contract matter between two private entities. Oracle can still revoke your license for doing it.

Constitution > Law > Contract.

The clauses in laws can be of two kinds:

- mandatory (cogent - may be wrong term for English law) - this clause is valid as it is in law and cannot be overridden by contract,

- non-mandatory (dispositive - again, the term may be wrong for English law) - where the clause is a default or baseline that is valid, unless the contract parties agree on something different.

Unfortunately for Oracle, in most countries the law allowing for reverse engineering (for purpose of interoperability and security) is the first kind, not the second.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#238

Post by balls187 »

jaawn wrote: post #132

I don't really see how a lot of the responses here match with the original blog post. People seem to be airing a lot of long-standing grievances about Oracle rather than responding to the specific post on its own. Viewed on its own, the post can basically be summarized as "Please stop treating our products like they are open source. They're not, and it is against the license agreement to reverse engineer our stuff to…

> be summarized as "Please stop treating our products like they are open source. They're not, and it is against the license agreement to reverse engineer our stuff to find the source code."

and it's not helpful because of the near 100% false positive rate.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#239

Post by bunderbunder »

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…

"We expect to see profit driven to zero in a competitive market, and that is what we saw in Standard Oil's pricing."

We don't see that in any of the information you provided. You gave a graph of oil prices, not of Standard Oil's profits.

Re: “Stop reverse engineering our code”

#240

Post by schoen »

RobAley wrote: post #75
agounaris wrote: post #54

I don't understand why everybody is mad about this post, oracle has proprietary software that is bound with a license. In that sense I don't see why people do not moan about having to pay a rent because your tenancy contract that you signed says so... Long story short, its a right of a SOFTWARE mostly company to protect its software, open source is not always the solution and reverse engineering something, consumes w…

> its a right of a SOFTWARE mostly company to protect its software They also have a duty of care to their clients > open source is not always the solution No one saying it is. Plenty of other proprietary software vendors protect their softwaqre in customer-friendly ways. > reverse engineering something, consumes way more energy for the problems it actually solves When a vendor like Oracle gives you no other option to…

I'm surprised to see the "no one is saying it is" in this context. You don't have to look far on HN to find considerable numbers of people expressing categorical opposition to proprietary software licensing, although it remains a minority view here.
Post reply on HN