×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oracle: Proud, Self-Reliant, Increasingly Isolated

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the sitting-in-the-corner-for-a-timeout dept.

Cloud 119

jfruhlinger writes "One of Oracle's stated purposes when it bought Sun more than two years ago was to create full-stack appliances: SPARC servers running Solaris or Oracle Linux and Oracle's suite of app servers and of course its omnipresent database. Its new T4 processor is a reaffirmation of that strategy. But has the company painted itself into a corner? While it's cautiously embraced the cloud, its cloud services don't work with Windows or other companies' offerings, which kills much of their potential value; meanwhile, they've managed to alienate open source developers and big swaths of the Java community. It seems that Oracle's inability to play well with others is locking them out of the multipolar future."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

119 comments

Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" biz (4, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571346)

He's in the "all the traffic will bear" business. Get over it. Get to forking.

Re:Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" b (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37571464)

This is more about the business model of Oracle within the IT world. They are basically trying to be the main solution of the server market much like IBM was towards the pc market and microsoft towards the OS market. Ultimately, I think it's a loosing strategy long term as these types of companies has been declining or stagnating while the timing of their strategy is wrong.. Oracle is basically trying to deploy a market strategy that fits an emerging market rather then in the well developed market they are in.

A company can only push people around (the high end of negotiations) when they bring a big enough stick to the table. To me, Oracle wants to acts like they have that stick when in reality, it's just too small.

Re:Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" b (3, Funny)

crunchygranola (1954152) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571768)

... To me, Oracle wants to acts like they have that stick when in reality, it's just too small.

You heard here first folks. Larry Ellison's "stick" is too small!

Re:Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" b (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571472)

Yep, open source developers and the Java 'community' are not their clients. They are a specialized company.. moving away from commodity products. Good for security, no?

Re:Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" b (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572170)

and cutting ties with interoperability, which means you have to be an all-or-nothing Oracle shop for the most part.

Re:Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" b (2)

John Bresnahan (638668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572470)

Almost every company for which I've worked had management that dreamed of being "tied in" to a big vendor. Makes me wonder if a prerequisite for getting into upper management is being into bondage.

I've actually seen director types get almost panicky when I've suggested a solution that bypassed the "officially approved" big vendor. They didn't even want to hear of the possibility of saving money or providing a better solution, because it would break that "special bond" they had with ${BIG_VENDOR}.

Re:Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" b (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572722)

Makes me wonder if a prerequisite for getting into upper management is being into bondage.

Okay, the safety word is "GPL!"

Re:Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" b (1)

bratwiz (635601) | more than 2 years ago | (#37573446)

I've actually seen director types get almost panicky when I've suggested a solution that bypassed the "officially approved" big vendor. They didn't even want to hear of the possibility of saving money or providing a better solution, because it would break that "special bond" they had with ${BIG_VENDOR}.

There's an old quote with some grains of truth to it-- "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". Which means that as long as you "run with the herd" it's harder to get fingered as the "dipshit responsible for this mess".

Re:Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" b (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572938)

Yes, but do not underestimate the influence of open source developers and of the Java 'community' among IT Departments. They may not make the final purchase decision, but they can certainly affect it.

Re:Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" b (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37573372)

You don't understand. Oracle intends to build secure systems with their own hardware and protocols. There will be no java or open source.

Re:Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" b (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37575554)

That strategy worked well for SGI. No, wait, no it didn't...

Oracle has a shrinking market for their database. If you need a big database, you go with Oracle, but the definition of big keeps moving. A payroll database that was a few tens of MBs used to be big. Now we're talking (at least) tens of GBs. Things like Postgresql are as good as Oracle at the low end, and the low end has gone from being 10% of the market to being 90%, and it keeps growing upwards, just as commodity desktop GPUs gradually ate the graphical workstation market.

The T4 is a beautiful chip, but a decent T4 system costs $90K. It may be better than any Intel system for database / web server workloads, but at that price it has to be at least ten times better, and it isn't.

Re:Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" b (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#37574060)

He's in the "all the traffic will bear" business. Get over it. Get to forking.

Proud, Self-Reliant, Increasingly Isolated : Pick Two.

Re:Uncle Larry is not in the "giving stuff away" b (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37577502)

OK:
Self & Increasing

What can possibly gro wong!?

WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37571398)

First four words of the article:

Oracle’s nothing if tenacious

So they're not tenacious? Or they are tenacious and therefore they're nothing?

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37571826)

I think it translates to "Oracle is characteristically tenacious".

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37571862)

No, that would be phrased as "Oracle's nothing if not tenacious" to use the common idiom - which was the GP's point: the article's author flubbed the phrasing.

Oracle: (2)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571402)

The only company that's ever made me actually happy to use Microsoft's competing product instead. Now if only this self imposed isolation will convince everyone else to ditch Oracle SQL so i can stop supporting it =P

Oracle on shared web hosting (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572274)

Except there are still a lot of shared web hosts that don't offer PostgreSQL; they offer only Oracle MySQL. Good luck getting shared hosts to ditch MySQL.

Re:Oracle on shared web hosting (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37573566)

Except there are still a lot of shared web hosts that don't offer PostgreSQL; they offer only Oracle MySQL.

While its true that there are lots of shared hosting providers that don't offer PostgreSQL, there are also lots that do offer PostgreSQL. So if you want PostgreSQL you have options.

Re:Oracle on shared web hosting (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37576170)

While its true that there are lots of shared hosting providers that don't offer PostgreSQL, there are also lots that do offer PostgreSQL.

That's fine if you know you'll be installing a particular web application on your hosting plan from day one. But if you're adding an application to an existing hosting plan, you have to use what you have unless the contract with your hosting provider is due for renewal very soon.

Re:Oracle on shared web hosting (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37578428)

You only have yourself* to blame, for choosing a plan that won't give you options, when you should know you'd want them. Next time you switch providers get somebody that will help you instead of getting on your way.

* That "yourself", of course is corporationwise. That could mean your boss, or his boss, but it probably means you, because big corporations hardly use non-flexible hosting providers.

I had no idea in advance that I'd want... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37578514)

You only have yourself* to blame, for choosing a plan that won't give you options, when you should know you'd want them.

When I signed up for hosting, I had no idea in advance that I'd want to run a specific app that does not support PostgreSQL, only MySQL or MariaDB.

Re:I had no idea in advance that I'd want... (1)

Zancarius (414244) | more than 2 years ago | (#37578804)

When I signed up for hosting, I had no idea in advance that I'd want to run a specific app that does not support PostgreSQL, only MySQL or MariaDB.

Not to mention that, while the margin is shrinking, there's quite a few generic FOSS web apps out there that either 1) continue to lack support for PostgreSQL or 2) have exceedingly shoddy support for it.

While he didn't say it, you could argue that tepples was alluding to the fact that crummy PHP apps are pretty much responsible for the reason why so many providers offer only MySQL; to an extent, market forces (the market in this case being available apps) have over the years driven provides to use only one solution. It's not ideal, and it's a situation that's improving over time, but if anything it might be appropriate to shift the blame to projects like phpBB which for years had PostgreSQL support, but in the 2.x branch, performance was abysmal. Oh, and others, too, who supported only MySQL (or MySQLi, if you were lucky).

Although, I'm not sure how relevant all of this will be in a few years. VPS hosting is growing cheaper, and if you're offering a paid-for service, you're much less likely to go with a shared host unless your objective is to simply put up a gallery system for some relatives or something reasonably small.

Regardless: While tepples does seem to play devil's advocate more often than perhaps he otherwise should, he does have a point. There are a lot of providers who don't offer anything other than MySQL. Likewise, there's a lot of FOSS apps that foster the same, which is likely the reason many providers do what they do!

Re:Oracle: (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#37573364)

There is a reason why Oracle is on top of database business. That's because their databases work a hell of a lot better then competition in large scale installations.

People who fork those 10k+ per processor licences expect the bang for their buck and they get it.

Re:Oracle: (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 2 years ago | (#37574402)

As someone who manages both Oracle and MS SQL servers I often question whether that is the case. While it is true in the 7 years that I've been managing Oracle I've had exceedingly few issues making the admin process boring and thus effective, MS SQL doesn't require a whole lot of work either. Once you setup your maintenance and backup plans it's pretty much a set and forget setup as well.

Of course I've also found the MS SQL server features are much more readily accessible and easy to deploy without having to modify scripts. The equivalent of Oracle Dataguard on the Microsoft side for instance takes far less time to deploy while they both have their occasional hiccups. When it comes to the core DB Oracle wins hands down, for everything beyond that they suck pretty hard. While Microsoft is pretty good all around.

Re:Oracle: (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37578476)

Huw much processing and redundancy would that same money buy at the inexpensive side of things? Most of the time, buying three times more hardware and software will get you a bigger capacity and bigger uptime for a smaller price.

Altough, some times it won't. But Oracle couldn't sustain itself on those few clients that really need top datacenters, even assuming Oracle does in fact fit into a top datacenter (what is quite iffy).

Re:Oracle: (1)

Dwonis (52652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37578694)

But it totally makes sense that an empty string and NULL mean the same thing... sometimes.

No Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37571422)

I used to work for Sun years ago, and almost without exception Oracle salespeople were regarded as the most arrogant in the game. Hopefully a bit of humble pie won't do them any harm

Anecdote.... (4, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571438)

So we had some problems with how Nagios stock plugins interact with Solaris Zpools...under certain circumstances, it can read a filesystem as full even when it has plenty of space (less than half full). In looking for a solution, I found a check on the exchange that was written to use the zpool tools to check. I found a minor bug in the check, fixed it, deployed it, and sent a patch to the original author.

His reply? He thanked me, but informed me that it was of no use to him anymore as his company migrated everything off of Solaris rather than deal with Oracle.

So I would say yes, this sounds about right.

Re:Anecdote.... (1)

ryanov (193048) | more than 2 years ago | (#37574870)

We are aggressively moving away from Solaris because of the change in cost to hardware support. It's a shame for me as Solaris was the OS I'm most comfortable with lately, but, so it goes.

Google: Proud, Self-Reliant, Increasingly Schizo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37571460)

Good has always been a cut above. It's been academic. It's been correct. It hasn't needed to resort to crap, but to majestic architecture. Now, Google continues to be proud, and self-reliant. At the same time, it is a schizophrenic business that thinks it has to create the next social layer. It acts like it's a 23-year-old bay area turd that has nothing better to do than find a way for two people to message each other who otherwise would not have messaged each other.

Is my post in the wrong story? Or is it just a very right post?

Re:Google: Proud, Self-Reliant, Increasingly Schiz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37571692)

go ahead and mod me down. It just proves that you don't have a reply.

Re:Google: Proud, Self-Reliant, Increasingly Schiz (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571762)

Or it proves that you're offtopic? The Google bashing thread is over there ---->

This is the Oracle bashing thread.

Re:Google: Proud, Self-Reliant, Increasingly Schiz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37572150)

thanks. On reflection, I agree with both you and the mod who obliterated me.

Re:Google: Proud, Self-Reliant, Increasingly Schiz (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572294)

A comparison might be summarized as "Oracle is no worse in this way than, say, Google." Would it still be off-topic in such a light?

this just in: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37571492)

This just in: Oracle doesn't give a shit about the freetard "community".

No, THIS just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37571548)

Dude... "I read your email". So there.

The future doesn't look that multipolar (1)

tinker_taylor (618697) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571500)

With the state of affairs (financially) with players such as HP, the future doesn't look very multipolar. I suspect that the Enterprise computing market will become more and more bipolar (pun intended) and the focus will shift to selling "platform as a service" or "Infrastructure as a service" solutions which hook seamlessly into public cloud offerings...
HP will get bought, EMC will get bought, Netapp will get bought and then there will remain only 4 main players in the Computing platform market -- IBM, Oracle (Private Clouds) and Google and Amazon (Public clouds)!
Everyone's personal computing will be powered by an i or a Droid. Offices will become completely virtual, UNIX will (REALLY) be dead (this time), Systems admins will either have to work for the big four or start flipping burgers. All code will be automatically generated by some code vending virtual kiosks...

Hey wasn't there another thread about Operating Systems for Cities?!? :o

Re:The future doesn't look that multipolar (1)

tinker_taylor (618697) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571546)

oh and did I forget to mention that Cisco will buy Intel and will provide the plumbing for all data in the world within the next 10 years?!?

Re:The future doesn't look that multipolar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37571766)

Yes, because websites will all be hosted in the magical cloud, which somehow transcends the need for servers, and nobody will ever, EVER want to host ANYTHING on their own servers. Idiot.

There isn't a -1 stupid moderation, so I substitute overrated.

Re:The future doesn't look that multipolar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37572316)

Not to mention the companies that I have worked for who understand the cloud and its benefits, but feel it is better to operate their own private infrastructure to protect themselves and their business. If I am running into this, then I know there must be many of them out there. These big companies can buy each other all they want. In the end, companies are still gonna run their own stuff and have their own data centers. Simple as that. Sysadmins will have jobs and so will programmers. This cloud thing is just a phase. It's good for some stuff but not others. Do you think software/hardware developers are going to put their CVS/SVN/Perforce repo's in the cloud? I don't... Are the big companies gonna run SAP on Amazon EC2? Doubtful...

Re:The future doesn't look that multipolar (3, Insightful)

ScottyLad (44798) | more than 2 years ago | (#37578110)

Yes, because websites will all be hosted in the magical cloud, which somehow transcends the need for servers, and nobody will ever, EVER want to host ANYTHING on their own servers. Idiot.

There isn't a -1 stupid moderation, so I substitute overrated.

When I was a young engineer in the early 90's most of my time was spent migrating services from mainframes to standalone servers. It was the epitome of progress - instead of these shared resources, you could have your very own dedicated resources, complete with redundant power, storage, memory, etc

At the time, one of the old engineers told me "we'll be changing all this back in 15 or 20 years, wait and see"

These days, I can appreciate the old man's wisdom. There are two trends which have been constant for as long as I've been working in IT:

  1. A desire to centralise everything which is currently decentralised
  2. A desire to decentralise everything which is currently centralised

Give it another 20 years, and I'll probably be seeing out the twighlight of my career dragging services back out of the "cloud" on to discrete hardware. Having your own dedicated resources will be the epitome of progress, compared to all that old-fashioned "cloud" computing.

Re:The future doesn't look that multipolar (3, Informative)

SmurfButcher Bob (313810) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571920)

Yes, because when life safety and big money is on the line, our first action is to introduce MORE fragile complexity that only benefits a held-harmless 3rd party who's sole goal is to insert themselves into our revenue stream.

Reality much?

Re:The future doesn't look that multipolar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37576624)

Yes, the combination of global warming and the economy is destroying the habitats of the multipolar bear.

Perspective (0)

morcego (260031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571574)

- Tom Henderson makes, maybe, 6-7 digits. Larry makes at least 8-9.
- In the past 5yrs, Oracle stocks have been going up (bluechip and all that), going from 17.74 to the current 28.86. Was 28.86 1yr ago

One of them if right about Oracle's business practices, the other is wrong.

And lets not forget:

tomhenderson wrote Oracle has a Sun spot:
Oracle is pushing itself into a corner, a fantastic money-making corner, but a corner nonetheless.

So let me make my prediction. In the next 12 months, Larry will increase his income by a higher percentage than Tom Henderson.

Seriously now, what is it with analysts continuing saying that people who makes heaps of money, making more each passing year as their business continue to steadily grow and expand, are wrong ?

Larry can be an ahole and a weird, but he is right on the most important business indicator, as well the second and third: making money, stock prices and annual growth.

He is more successful than you. Deal with it.

Re:Perspective (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571712)

I'd like to offer the obligatory MS comparison. You can't argue that Microsoft didn't make many wrong decisions (Zune, Windows Mobile, etc over the past ten years. Yet there is Balmer still in charge making more money than I am. Microsoft still makes heaps money. You don't need to make more money than people to recognize bad decisions. That would logically require us to make all elections a wealth measurement exercise.

Re:Perspective (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571754)

Did you read TFA ?

Analysts (like the one on TFA) are not talking about specific products. They are talking about company-wide strategic/business decisions.

Re:Perspective (1)

crunchygranola (1954152) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571820)

...That would logically require us to make all elections a wealth measurement exercise.

That sounds about right for the U.S. Give it ten years, and we will be there.

Re:Perspective (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571842)

What makes you think anyone is jealous? I certainly am not.

Same thing with MS - all the business types think its jealousy. It isn't - I truly loathe their business practices, sneaky tactics, *and* their code. All of it.

Deal with that.

Migration to MS SQL Server (4, Interesting)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571612)

Is Microsoft better than Oracle? I kind of see it as the East Front: Nazi Germany against Communist Russia. Can't they just destroy each other completely?

Re:Migration to MS SQL Server (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572564)

Comparing Microsoft vs. Oracle to Nazi Germany is an interesting comparison--if you follow through with it.

If both sides exhaust themselves, who is going to take their place? A peace and love cooperative or just another corporate predator?

Re:Migration to MS SQL Server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37576250)

DB2 most likely.

Re:Migration to MS SQL Server (2)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572926)

Is Microsoft better than Oracle?

I would say that if you're migrating anyway, why not do it right and migrate to PostgreSQL or EnterpriseDB? That may even be an easier transition if you're coming from Oracle, too.

Just Saying... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571616)

It seems that Oracle's inability to play well with others is locking them out of the multipolar future.

I would hope so. It's the only type of corrective behavior that works long term.

Now if we could just get people to attack Apple's arrogance...

not an issue to Oracle's customers (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571626)

There are plenty more hardware platform makers in this world, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Groupe Bull, Unisys, Cray to name a few.

HP isn't leaving the enterprise computing field any time soon, regardless of what happens with their wintel pc offerings.

Oracle and multipolar (2)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571648)

I'm having a hard time seeing where Oracle isn't multipolar. Their absolutely core technology is a database. All their business offerings on the next layer generally support databases other than Oracle. Oracle is usable by business products that conflict with their offerings. Going to their Sun acquisition it gives them a hardware platform they can control. The ability to buy an "Oracle box" which Oracle is responsible for maintaining, top to bottom.

As for OpenOffice I'm not sure how that fits with Oracle's model at all, it is a Sun asset they can't really make use of. MySQL they seem to be protecting fine keeping it focused on the low end, along with Berkley DB, which is also theirs.

Oracle Linux is silly. I think Oracle will likely start licensing RedHat as it gets more difficult to support. Once they start writing checks their problems with RedHat will be over.

I don't agree with the author.

Re:Oracle and multipolar (3, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572708)

Oracle Linux is silly. I think Oracle will likely start licensing RedHat as it gets more difficult to support. Once they start writing checks their problems with RedHat will be over.

I don't agree with the author.

Their stack is: bare metal, Oracle Linux, Oracle ASM (fs/volume mgr), Oracle Cluster, then DB, app, etc.

In other words, from bare metal (which they also sell :-) to app (and they sell some giant ones - Peoplesoft, Siebel, Oracle eBusiness, etc.) they can sell you the entire stack. Everything below the DB is reasonably priced (compared to Veritas, RedHat, etc.) and exists mainly as a way to sell you the DB and up, where the real money is (because OS, cluster, etc. are commodities at this point)

I'd be really surprised if they'd yank one one layer of the stack (OEL).

They may merge in some Sun tech, though - right now that is a whole different stack.

Re:Oracle and multipolar (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572940)

It would still look like that to the customer. Just Oracle would be paying RedHat for 2nd or 3rd tier support on OEL. The customer gets a unified support experience by RedHat is doing the OS work. Besides they don't sell PC hardware so that' the very bottom layer of the stack easy to drop or do it 1/2 way or rebrand or...

I don't think Oracle wants to get into making an OS. Hell they don't even want to do much with Solaris.

Re:Oracle and multipolar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37573460)

Then you'd be wrong. Why write cheques to RHEL when they don't have to? And what does their support get you that Oracle can't also do? They have over 100k employees, some of which can read/write code. As others have tried to say owning the whole stack is the goal and selling that "piece of mind" to another large company is why. If a core piece of business software (e.g. Peoplesoft, ERP, etc.) goes down the CEO of AT&T (just as an example) doesn't want to hear: "oh we need to open a support case with RedHat." He just wants it fix and he wants to make one call for that to happen. As for Solaris, by all reports they are making a lot of investment there too.

Re:Oracle and multipolar (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#37573710)

Who cares if you have to give money to Redhat? Chances are that you are going to be giving Redhat less money for the same part of the stack. Plus Redhat is actually a Linux specialist and a pillar of the community rather than just some 3rd party that want's to exploit everyone.

You would write a check to Redhat now for the same reason you would write one to IBM or Sun before.

Oracle is just a big wannabe and their sociopathic attitude is driving all of their good talent away.

Re: RedHat (1)

durdur (252098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37574372)

If they (or more likely, their customers) decide they really need RedHat, they can write a big check and buy the company. They could afford it. But they probably won't. As Larry said a few years ago, RedHat doesn't really own any IP. Their stuff is open source. So why pay for something you can just take?

Re: RedHat (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37578520)

They'd aquire lots of expertize, contracts and good will.

Now, Oracle being Oracle, those would last for a week or less. But that is not because RedHat is worthless.

Re:Oracle and multipolar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37576424)

The whole reason Oracle even rebrands RHEL is to bleed out Red Hat. Larry has been quite open about that. Giving Red Hat money isn;t bleeding them out, it's not going to happen.

Windows wont work with the cloud? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37571696)

Last time I checked the cloud was a fancy term for clustered internet/intranet portals.

Ironically the last time I have seen Oracle reporting software, it required IE 6 and not even IE 7 would work even though the backend was unix based. SOme very proprietary activeX controls too. Last I heard that requirement was still there. Sounds like a crappy and poorly engineered products they have that wont work with their own operating system and platforms. Or even any platform younger than 10 years old, in which in 2001 still didn't support all of the 1998 standards of CSS 1.0 13 years ago.

Does Oracle even care if Java is multiplatform? I guess it doesn't matter as it is all but dead on anything but the high end servers.

Re:Windows wont work with the cloud? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572124)

Welcome, o, thou traveler from the past!

What you are saying was true maybe 4 years ago.

Re:Windows wont work with the cloud? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37574660)

That was 2 years ago. Client has lots of older software and probably refuses to upgrade as the old one aint broke so why fix it. I was told back in 2009 that Oracle had no intention of leaving IE 6 right when WIndows 7 was coming out. I was shocked as I knew businesses would be upgrading quickly. The recession hit delaying that, but statistics show Windows 7 already overtook XP in the US and businesses have either upgraded, upgrading, or plan to upgrade in the next 6 months from what I seen. Bad time to keep supporting IE 6.

Re:Windows wont work with the cloud? (1)

ScottyLad (44798) | more than 2 years ago | (#37578256)

I was told back in 2009 that Oracle had no intention of leaving IE 6 right when WIndows 7 was coming out. I was shocked as I knew businesses would be upgrading quickly... in the US and businesses have either upgraded, upgrading, or plan to upgrade in the next 6 months from what I seen. Bad time to keep supporting IE 6.

It just goes to show that Oracle know their customer base. I work with plenty of clients who have been "planning" to migrate away from legacy browsers, operating systems and applications for years.

In Oracles client base (ie, the enterprise market) it's not unusual to find several tens of thousands of employees, a few hundred departments, a couple of dozen operating systems, a few hundred applications, an army of in-house developers "tweaking" what everyone thought was a COTS package... and these are just the variables you can easily identify....

Whilst you're right in stating that almost all business are in the process of phasing out any remaining IE6, that process can be a very long and complex one when you scale up to enterprise environments and their associated legacy support requirements.

Oracle and the Java Community (5, Interesting)

karianna (917148) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572086)

FYI - I'm the London JUG [meetup.com] co-leader, we have a seat on the Java Standards Body (aka the JCP) and I've seen first hand the Oracle and Java community challenges :-).

I think Oracle's record with the Java community is turning around in the right direction. They clearly didn't know how to the deal with the community to begin with, but I'll give em credit for trying their damnedest to get better at it! For example:

  • They offer amazing amounts of (no strings attached) support to the Java User Groups (we've certainly had it better than we did under Sun). They put their $/£ where their mouth is and offer logistical support for user group events to boot (again, no strings attached).
  • They set a date for Java 7, and they delivered the darn thing.
  • They're working on the JCP reforms, starting with openness and transparency (JSR-348 [java.net]) and they will have a follow-up JSR to address all of the legal/licensing etc concerns (promises to be a humdinger of a mailing list).
  • They've gotten a number of major community players into the OpenJDK (some will argue dubiously, but hey having Apple, SAP, IBM, RedHat on board is not to be sneezed at).

Now before the sceptics spit out their coffee:

  • Have they screwed up a bunch of times? Yeah sure they have, Hudson/Jenkins, the Java Web Start thing and a few others.
  • Do they communicate in a way that the community would like them to? Definitely not always, they like to keep silent until they get the official ducks in a row.
  • Are there issues around legal/licensing? Heck yes. and that's going to make for an interesting 2012, I suggest you become part of the JCP process so you can have your say.

So there's definitely stuff to work on, but they are listening and the community has worked with them on many occasions in the past year to get some really cool things done. Let's not forget they're mainly individual engineers like you and I trying to do the very best they can for the platform.

Now I'm off to put on my Kevlar ;-)

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (1)

karianna (917148) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572130)

Meh - guess I still have a lot to learn about /. formatting, the preview certainly lies in Chrome Dev.

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (1)

javilon (99157) | more than 2 years ago | (#37572672)

Lets say Google wins and Dalvik is legally cleared. We could code in Scala and run on a grown up Dalvik VM (I know it doesn't scale to big hardware, but that surely can be fixed). This would keep the investment in java APIs and skills and give us a gradual path to bypass all Oracle stuff.

Then we could forget about Oracle forever. I would be really happy.

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37574768)

Somehow I keep wanting to read that name as the "Dalek VM" :-P

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37572692)

Except for the the fact java 1.7 was released broken, look up the loop errors from firefox.

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (0)

sproketboy (608031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37574596)

WOT? How come this is not modded down into oblivion?

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 2 years ago | (#37574962)

Because contrary to you desires, not everyone is this world thinks Oracle in evil

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (1)

sproketboy (608031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37575868)

Sorry I forgot the "/s". I thought the WOT was enough. I guess some people need more hand-holding than others on the sarcasm front.

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37575342)

I think Oracle's record with the Java community is turning around in the right direction

The only "right direction" is for Oracle to destroy both Java and itself: Oracle is evil and Java is a disaster that is going nowhere fast.

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (1)

sgt101 (120604) | more than 2 years ago | (#37576294)

I honestly just don't get the anti-java thing in the developer community.

It's fantastic. It's amazing.

Eclipse, testng, guice, java, hibernate : bloody marvelous.

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37578494)

Java is nice and fun to work with. I thoroughly enjoyed learning it but then I got a job in a big company doing Java and it was boring. That isn't Java's fault but the problem is most Java work is going to be in big boring companies.

I also think it's painful to do web development with Java. It's improving but there are too many frameworks that all work the same way (ie with too much damn XML) and it sort of forces you to need a full blown IDE in order not to waste your time with it. I shouldn't need a full blown IDE to do something more than a couple of basic servlets.

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37576046)

So let's see, Oracle gives you stuff for free and now you're saying they're a good company and almost recommend them now? Give me a break. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me a million times,... F**K Oracle.. No good will come from this.

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37577564)

Hitler made some amazing progress in genetics research, and furnace efficiency; He was still almost as evil as Oracle is.

Re:Oracle and the Java Community (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37578430)

I hope you're right but no offence, I'd be more likely to believe you've drank the kool-aid you shouldn't have drank.

Darwin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37572396)

What I see is folks leaving SPARC in droves, leaving Solaris (sadly) and looking hard for alternatives to Oracle DB and apps. The only folks paying attention to the T4 are those too trapped or too lazy to escape. Darwin was an optimist - it's survival of the fittest alright, but today fit is defined as smart *and* paranoid. If you like what Larry is planning, you must not be paying attention and likely won't be among the survivors.

Re:Darwin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37574734)

I don't see anyone leaving Oracle databases and applications (or MSSQL, for that matter), because the business rationale that led to those platforms hasn't changed.

Sun was a sick company for a long time. People were leaving in droves before Oracle ever entered the picture.

Oracle.. Microsoft.. Just dying business models.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37573590)

10 years from now: Oracle? Aren't they that company that once wrote database software? Microsoft? Aren't they that crappy software house that Apple bought?

Oracle's got the market wrong (2)

Stonefish (210962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37574246)

Oracle has really missed the boat in relation to user sentiment and understanding of the market. There is a perception amongst management that it any MS or other vendor solution is going to be cheaper than an oracle one, this is largely true and I'll give you a couple of examples.
The Oracle licensing model is bound to cores not CPUs, thus any other vendor can demonstrate that as infrastructure scales to more cores rather than CPUs Oracle licensing is going to bite you in the arse.
Oracles take on virtual computing is also meant to drive you towards Oracles virtualisation products however in reality it is pushing in the opposite direction. You must licence the product for all the cores in the cluster and so as agencies adopt virtualisation Oracle goes from being merely expensive to being uncompetitive.
I'm speaking from experience in this regard, in a recent project we slashed 25% off a 15m project by replacing some of the oracle software stack and using a combination of Redhat and MS, we changed the sys integrators design and the vendor is happy to support it. This was in a government environment where change is 10x harder than in the commercial arena. It should be noted that this saving was against a "discounted" oracle price.
Oracle's price = pissing off management in hard times
Oracle's open source strategy = pissing off the open source community which tended to oppose MS
Oracle Google/Android strategy = pissing off mobile users

Oracle has hard times ahead and they're current pissing on those who were standing with them.

The mistake that will eventually kill Oracle (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 2 years ago | (#37576634)

Oracle can't play well with others, and their own customers are "others."

In the last few years, Oracle has gone from treating their customers with arrogance and contempt (their old model) to outright abuse. Every major Sun shop I know of has some Oracle DB stuff floating around, and most of them are not just dumping their Oracle/Sun gear and software, but even getting rid of their OracleDB instances as well.

Customers cannot trust Oracle, and are upset over it. There are also more reasonable alternatives now than ever before. I'll be happy to see Oracle slowly die.

Good Luck to Oracle (not) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37578092)

Oracle is one of the major oligoplists out there, in the tradition of Microsoft, IBM, Google, Apple, and Facebook. Hopefully a combination of anti-trust lawsuits and competition will do away with most of them, or force them to grow up, as IBM seems to be doing...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...