41–50 of 143 posts
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.
This is the headline I expected to see 10 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing about EC2 precludes it from offloading accountability from its clients to itself. Amazon operates infrastructure for the CIA. Consultants are plentiful and cheap. Amazon can provide handholding-as-a-Service just as well as Oracle. At some point, Amazon may invest more resources into its service business. But now it makes sense to grow its platform. That is the difference in Amazon vs Oracle model. Amazon is p…
Amazon does not provide SLA agreements at all. I don't think people are necc. disagreeing with your vision of how things should be, but the fact is, enterprise software just doesn't work the way you're describing.
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.
Instead, we use open sources, or cloud/ X as a Service, or local technologies.
I wonder if it is the same in USA or other countries?
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.
So much legacy still runs on it. I've seen many projects at the top of very very large companies (think telcos) that still use Oracle DB. The cost to upgrade these systems with full end to end testing is not worth the investment. Every system I've seen that has this setup is extremely archaic in every way. We're talking java applets in the browser to show a form where you choose options that compose a query in the ba…
Not just working at Oracle. Once Oracle bought Sun our Oracle DBAs started relentlessly agitating for us to buy SPARC servers because they were now the best, obviously, and a failure to use them meant we clearly were doing it wrong.
"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.
Well, there's always: 1) Squeezing your enterprise customers for money. 2) Lawsuits. With the right incentives to lawyers and politicians, Oracle might be able to get Lotus v. Borland effectively reversed; then they could start licensing the use of SQL itself!
That's what they're very close to achieving with Oracle v Google.
However, I don't think Oracle would be the winner in the "Who owns SQL?" conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Companies value safety over risk Yes. In the case of a database, "safety" is safety from downtime, data loss, data theft. So companies want a database that is fault tolerant and secure. > Postgres might be good enough for Imgur or Joe Bob's Bait Shack And Social Network, but neither of those is a bank, healthcare provider, or an entity capable of ordering an air strike. Banks and healthcare providers strike me as f…
6 years of AT&T under my belt, Enterprise operates differently. They don't care about what postgres or EC2 or whatever can do, it's all about not doing anything that someone can point a finger at you for later. Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM, Oracle or Microsoft. Also, companies that supply software to corps also supply something that's probably more valuable than the software itself. Support & Maintenance ag…
This is not even remotely true any more.
This is the headline I expected to see 10 years ago.