31–40 of 94 posts
I love that chart on the second to last page. The axis are labeled "Completeness of vision" and "Ability to execute".
It also seems like the chart is stuffed with a ton of databases you wouldn't even consider, just to make it look like they are more ahead than is really the case. It's not that the databases in the lower-left aren't any good, they just fulfill very different roles.
Let me say again how our workplace conversion from Oracle to Postgres has made EVERYTHING SO MUCH BETTER. Not just from never having to talk to Oracle ever again - but the fact that we can give every app its own PG clustered pair without ever having to think the word "license". Nothing has to play nice with anything else. (We also have some MySQL - from old in-house apps and from third-party things like Drupal, Magen…
I love that chart on the second to last page. The axis are labeled "Completeness of vision" and "Ability to execute".
Vision: Screw customers over and get their money.
Execution: Very probable, customers don't run fast enough.Why do companies choose Oracle nowadays? I mean valid technical reasons, not being clueless or stuck in the abusive relationship of vendor lock-in.
They buy application suites like peoplesoft, Oracle Finacials, Identity Suite, seibel, etc and end up getting an ELA for the database. Once they get the shoulder in the door, they push to expand the database horizontally in the organization. Microsoft has a similar strategy with CRM and SQL Server. SQL Server drives their corporate success. Postgres vs. Oracle, etc is a pointless argument because it's answering the w…
The most important difference is that SQL Server has everything that Oracle has to offer at a much, much cheaper price.
I agree that comparison with postgres and mysql are pointless. They offer a tiny fraction of what enteprise products have. If you need it, you will know.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. (Gandhi) Hits hard
This. My first reaction to the news is that it is a clear evidence that PostgreSQL is now fully on par with Oracle in terms of everything average IT companies need to be concerned with. If I were Oracle and my product is still ahead of PostgreSQL at least in some areas, I wouldn't be so upset.
Why do companies choose Oracle nowadays? I mean valid technical reasons, not being clueless or stuck in the abusive relationship of vendor lock-in.
PostgreSQL doesn't have the network of value added resellers and internal sales reps that Oracle has amassed. These are people that engineers dismiss but management often see them as a support tier for their customers of a product. That tier builds trust.
If you try to introduce your product/service to an enterprise B2B market with an established market leader and intend to sell or distribute entirely off of value alone you will lose nearly every time. In smaller companies that can't dream of licensing Oracle the risk is worth the reward, it's not like they have a choice and they then grow an in house knowledge to be that support tier if they scale.
Consider that I f something breaks at a big enterprise it's likely to cost millions of dollars in lost payroll while it gets fixed. Big companies would rather mitigate the risk and buy a supported and proven product. They trust it.
Why do companies choose Oracle nowadays? I mean valid technical reasons, not being clueless or stuck in the abusive relationship of vendor lock-in.
Honestly (having been through plenty of meetings where this type of stuff happens) it's because Oracle has someone out there spreading the word to The decision makers. The Oracle sales team isn't converting developers, they're in the ear of the person who signs the check. Nobody is out there on the Postgres side doing the same, so that decision maker doesn't even know who they are. Then when someone suggests pgsql fo…
Oracle is beginning to find they are in trouble. Here's a small example: I'm hearing from a fairly reliable source that quite a few large Australian banks are replacing Oracle (my source didn't say with what). They are citing the enormous cost of the licenses, along with difficulty getting adequate support without paying a fortune. My contact himself is in upper management of a large corporation and Oracle screwed hi…
Woah. So essentially Oracle's "sales" reps behave like the mob. How have they gotten away with this for so long?
Why do companies choose Oracle nowadays? I mean valid technical reasons, not being clueless or stuck in the abusive relationship of vendor lock-in.
My experience has shown me that Companies will buy/use technologies based on two pillars, Trust and Value. The pillar of trust takes an enormous amount of time to establish and can be decimated very quickly. Trust is about 95% of any buying relationship. Companies will even buy products they don't understand the value of because they trust the vendor it comes from. PostgreSQL doesn't have the network of value added r…
One facet to trust is your personal career: as the manager who signs off on this, you can trust that if anything goes wrong Oracle will aggressively defend your decision — people, including high-level managers, will show up on site to defend the decision and promise to fix whatever went wrong, consultant reports by the pound, etc. If you go with Postgres, you're going to have to do more of that yourself and if the amounts were at all significant, you can be very confident that Oracle will have people telling your C-level management that this never would have happened if you'd gone with them. Even going with Microsoft can be seen as “risky” for that reason.