61–70 of 94 posts
Why do companies choose Oracle nowadays? I mean valid technical reasons, not being clueless or stuck in the abusive relationship of vendor lock-in.
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…
Just believing a well-known company which presents their product as "the solution to all your problems" does not seem very clever to me.
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…
This has not been my experience.
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…
PostgreS "ships" a Java 8/JDBC 4.2 driver, Oracle does not.
Why do companies choose Oracle nowadays? I mean valid technical reasons, not being clueless or stuck in the abusive relationship of vendor lock-in.
No one has ever been fired for recommending Oracle. And if you can't code, the horror-show that is Oracle Apex seems like a good idea.
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…
Yeah, until MySQL gets a corrupted LSN that points into the future and you have to dump the table then reimport it... :P
Chris is referring to this: http://rationalwiki.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/mysql-database-pr... which I eventually resolved by carefully hand-exporting the corrupt table to CSV and reimporting it. I think we lost one revision from 2008. I HATE MYSQL SO MUCH.
(unfortunately, MediaWiki is one of those things where MySQL or preferably MariaDB is the only realistic option - other DBs are hypothetically supported, but in practice not well enough unless you want to do the heavy lifting yourself.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
But should not the decision makers be smart enough to see through this? If they sign contracts, they should do a proper research first. Just believing a well-known company which presents their product as "the solution to all your problems" does not seem very clever to me.
I know that when I don't have the knowledge in a particular area, say payment processing, and I can only think of a vendor or two off the top of my head, it becomes someone's assignment to bring me the pros and cons of the major vendors and maybe a couple of the upstarts- including getting on the phone with them if necessary. The ultimate decision will be a combination of that person's recommendation vs. any business problems that may prevent a relationship (say some certification or SLA forced on us by the client).
There is also the psychology aspect of a well known name. They must be a well known giant because they are good, provide the best, or provide something the others can't- right? Now, WE know that mostly Oracle doesn't do these things. There are a few cases where they have kind of engineered a way to be the only one who does the thing (then got someone to make it a requirement in their project). We know they're generally abusive, and awful to work with. A not very technical decision maker just knows Oracle is a big name. Just like SAP. I'm not saying it's an excuse, it just is.
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…
Note that sensible Oracle consultancies are openly offering similar support for Postgres. This can occasionally be useful ... assuming they can realistically supply that level of support e.g. when a PG fills its disk or various other disasters happen. (We've been testing our PG clusters at work with various test disasters and making sure we can recover from any of them with as little faff as possible.)