NASA overspent $15M on Oracle software bc it was afraid an audit could cost more
1–10 of 12 posts
Re: NASA overspent $15M on Oracle software bc it was afraid an audit could cost more
#2Time to evaluate Postgresql.
Re: NASA overspent $15M on Oracle software bc it was afraid an audit could cost more
#3Oracle has zero customers but plenty of hostages
Re: NASA overspent $15M on Oracle software bc it was afraid an audit could cost more
#4This seems to be normal in a lot of companies that pay for Oracle products; they use clauses in their contracts and licenses to trigger audits or you can just pay up. Many (most?) pay up because it is easier.
Re: NASA overspent $15M on Oracle software bc it was afraid an audit could cost more
#5> The auditor estimates NASA "could have saved approximately $35 million over the past five years in fines and overpayments ($20 million in penalties plus $15 million in Oracle overspend)" and is therefore questioning the costs.
$35 million, damn that's nearly 0.03% of their budget over the past 5 years.
Re: NASA overspent $15M on Oracle software bc it was afraid an audit could cost more
#6Why does any company nowadays start using Oracle?
Re: NASA overspent $15M on Oracle software bc it was afraid an audit could cost more
#7Why does any company nowadays start using Oracle?
I thought the same but having worked 2 years close to CIOs I have realized their job is quite hard as it is. CIOs have to navigate hundreds of technologies and each vendor wants their cut, sometimes US startups are the worst… so choosing an old established technology still makes sense for most of IT people to manage tech and vendor risks… not a great answer, I know.
Re: NASA overspent $15M on Oracle software bc it was afraid an audit could cost more
#8Why does any company nowadays start using Oracle?
I thought the same but having worked 2 years close to CIOs I have realized their job is quite hard as it is. CIOs have to navigate hundreds of technologies and each vendor wants their cut, sometimes US startups are the worst… so choosing an old established technology still makes sense for most of IT people to manage tech and vendor risks… not a great answer, I know.
I second the part about US startups. Compared to what Oracle delivers (really solid database clusters with everything enterprise customers need built in), their cost is actually not that high compared to other enterprise software. Especially SAAS that are only solve a narrow problem and can cost a lot.
To be clear, I'm all in favor to switch to Postgres for most workloads, but rather for new systems as migration old ones is either impossible or much more expensive than paying licensing fees.
Re: NASA overspent $15M on Oracle software bc it was afraid an audit could cost more
#9Oracle has zero customers but plenty of hostages
Just if you want to be a hostage, they could change a don't did it.
Re: NASA overspent $15M on Oracle software bc it was afraid an audit could cost more
#10Oracle has zero customers but plenty of hostages
This story isn't actually about Oracle, despite that being the most frequently mentioned aspect:
"Another revelation in the document is that NASA paid $4.36 million in software license violation penalties during FY 2021 alone. NASA was able to negotiate some fees down to zero but sent $3.85 million to SUSE and $415,000 to SAP. The auditor suspects other payments may have been made over the last five years – probably to the tune of $20 million."
Does SUSE also have hostages?
The Reg's story seems pretty reasonably written. The problem here is not with the vendors, who ultimately just want to get paid in the way NASA already agreed to pay them. The problem here - and even the Reg is a bit too polite to point it out - is that NASA's managers are aware that NASA is routinely engaging in software piracy and contract violations, yet apparently prefer to [make the taxpayer] pay fines rather than fix it.