Live data from Hacker News

Oracle's letter to Russian IT companies

postgresql.org

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: Oracle's letter to Russian IT companies

#41
post #13

Why do companies choose Oracle nowadays? I mean valid technical reasons, not being clueless or stuck in the abusive relationship of vendor lock-in.

IMO the principal advantage commercial RDBMS platforms have over the open source ones is query parallism [0], which can be a big advantage for certain query workloads.

Postgres and others are working on solutions for this, and I find more shops look for alternative solutions instead of paying for Oracle licenses.

[0] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Parallel_Query_Execution

Re: Oracle's letter to Russian IT companies

#42

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…

> * A number have been shaken down by Oracle sales reps who threaten a license review and potentially stiff penalties and litigation if they find anything at all out of order - unless they purchase software they don't need. Woah. So essentially Oracle's "sales" reps behave like the mob. How have they gotten away with this for so long?

They also take a lot of executives to strip clubs.

Re: Oracle's letter to Russian IT companies

#43
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Consider that if 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. 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, includi…

Im curious how many who claim the "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" thought process about paying for Oracle for their support or so they can blame someone else for being lazy and incompetent have ever USED oracle support. Waiting a week or longer for a patch with no work around is not uncommon, and not exactly something I would pay for.

Re: Oracle's letter to Russian IT companies

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comparison with SQL Server is not very sound. SQL Server is MUCH cheaper. I would venture to say it is more performent and is on-par with features (certainly will be after the next realease). Moreover. SQL Server is not brute forced in the way you say Oracle is, especially with CRM. Maybe something like that happens with the ERP products, but much more mildly. The most important difference is that SQL Server has…

SQL Server has everything that Oracle has to offer

One thing that comes to mind is Linux (or Solaris, HP-UX, or other nixes) support. SQL Server is essentially Windows-only.

Re: Oracle's letter to Russian IT companies

#45
post #16

I love that chart on the second to last page. The axis are labeled "Completeness of vision" and "Ability to execute".

This is Gartner's famous "Magic Quadrant".

You can download the whole report from Microsoft (not surprising, since it came out top):

https://info.microsoft.com/CO-SQL-CNTNT-FY16-09Sep-14-MQOper...

I've posted a big version of the Magic Quadrant here: http://imgur.com/3qFwPd6

Re: Oracle's letter to Russian IT companies

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparison with SQL Server is not very sound. SQL Server is MUCH cheaper. I would venture to say it is more performent and is on-par with features (certainly will be after the next realease). Moreover. SQL Server is not brute forced in the way you say Oracle is, especially with CRM. Maybe something like that happens with the ERP products, but much more mildly. The most important difference is that SQL Server has…

SQL Server has everything that Oracle has to offer One thing that comes to mind is Linux (or Solaris, HP-UX, or other nixes) support. SQL Server is essentially Windows-only.

Assuming this comes to fruition[1], SQL Server is going Linux middle of next year. Crazy times in Microsoft land

[1] https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2016/03/07/announcing-sql-s...

Re: Oracle's letter to Russian IT companies

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparison with SQL Server is not very sound. SQL Server is MUCH cheaper. I would venture to say it is more performent and is on-par with features (certainly will be after the next realease). Moreover. SQL Server is not brute forced in the way you say Oracle is, especially with CRM. Maybe something like that happens with the ERP products, but much more mildly. The most important difference is that SQL Server has…

SQL Server has everything that Oracle has to offer One thing that comes to mind is Linux (or Solaris, HP-UX, or other nixes) support. SQL Server is essentially Windows-only.

Yes, that's why I said this statement will be true for the upcomming release. I don't think this particular feature is that important anyway. Being Windows only has allowed SQL Server to e much more performent in many cases. Cost is not a factor.

Re: Oracle's letter to Russian IT companies

#48
post #13

Why do companies choose Oracle nowadays? I mean valid technical reasons, not being clueless or stuck in the abusive relationship of vendor lock-in.

One overlooked aspect is the career prospects for someone in IT working with an Oracle system. It is a network effect where career prospects dictate the system chosen which in turn makes the system more prevalent. Soon they are known as someone who has overseen an installation/maintenance of an Oracle system and can look forward to a stable career. In contrast someone installing a postgres system will not have the same opportunities.

It is a similar dynamic with SAP another much detested system by everyone who is not in IT or works as a consultant. It is amazing to me, pretty much everyone who actually works in an SAP (or Oracle) system detests it but cannot get IT to provide an alternative.

Re: Oracle's letter to Russian IT companies

#50
post #43
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consider that if 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. 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, includi…

Im curious how many who claim the "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" thought process about paying for Oracle for their support or so they can blame someone else for being lazy and incompetent have ever USED oracle support. Waiting a week or longer for a patch with no work around is not uncommon, and not exactly something I would pay for.

I think those happen at completely different levels and there are a lot of places where the communications process either doesn't work at all or has significant translation issues. Here's what it looked like at one job:

My level:

1. Internet Explorer 8 is released. Our users start to get the automatic update and our very expensive Oracle reporting app breaks.

2. I contact Oracle's support and get a very snotty customer “service” person:

“I noticed a bug in your JavaScript code which now triggers an exception on IE8.”[1]

“We don't beta-test Microsoft's software for them. We'll start testing IE8 when it ships.”

“That was last week. How's the testing going?”

pause

“We'll get back to you”

“Please do. I deployed a patch but am worried there are more subtle problems.”

3.

4. “Hi, this . Can you give us a copy of the patch you mentioned so we can distribute it to other customers who are dead in the water?”

5.

6. “You'll need to upgrade to $NEXT_MAJOR_VERSION, which was just released and is a paid upgrade”

The executive level where the decision to buy was actually made:

“Hey, heard you guys had a problem or two but the support group worked it out”

“Yeah, the usual. Are we still on for our normal tee time?”

The problem was that the executives didn't have any experience somewhere dramatically better functioning and both the outside sales team and their staff who had invested much of their professional development in that stack had an incentive to downplay problems and come up with reasons why any particular outside comparison wasn't valid. No large organization works exactly the same as its peers and so you can always come up with some argument for why they can do something but it won't work for you. The only thing which seems to disrupt that is either a failure too big to be excused or the emergence of an alternative which is either dramatically cheaper or does something new such as support mobile/BYOD or a cloud service which removes the need to have the staffing and equipment in-house for a major app.

1. This was actually a neat class of failure: the IE7-emulation mode solved most of the display problems but it was still using the IE8 JavaScript engine, which raised an exception when a library attempted to set zIndex to a completely invalid value like null, unlike the real IE7 engine which simply ignored it. I pity whoever at Microsoft maintained the test suites for those enterprise compatibility modes…

Post reply on HN