Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Oracle Government Open Source

Oracle Attacks Open Source; Says Community-Developed Code Is Inferior 394

Posted by Soulskill
from the completely-unbiased-and-without-any-sort-of-agenda dept.
sfcrazy writes "Oracle has a love-hate relationship with open source technologies. In a whitepaper (PDF) for the Deparment of Defense, Oracle claims that TCO (total cost of ownership) goes up with the use of open source. They're essentially trying to build a case for the use of their own products within the government. 'The skill required to successfully and economically blend source code into a commercially viable product is relatively scarce. It should not be done directly at government expense.' Oracle also attacks the community-based development model, calling it more insecure than company developed products. 'Government-sponsored community development approaches to software creation lack the financial incentives of commercial companies to produce low-defect, well-documented code.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle Attacks Open Source; Says Community-Developed Code Is Inferior

Comments Filter:
  • Prejudiced much? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:00PM (#45135111) Homepage

    That is the most insulting demonstration of hubris from Oracle I have seen in a very long time.

    • by Vanderhoth (1582661) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:09PM (#45135207)
      You should try opening you're eyes more than once a day. :P
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Open-source documentation is like an insomniac cat. Theoretically it exists somewhere, but no one's ever seen it.

      And remember, in this paper Oracle is pandering to risk-averse goverment "managers" in order to get money from them.

      • by dskoll (99328) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:28PM (#45135455)

        Open-source documentation is like an insomniac cat. Theoretically it exists somewhere, but no one's ever seen it.

        Don't over-generalize. The open-source PostgreSQL project has the best documentation of a software project [postgresql.org] that I have ever seen, open- or closed-source.

        Other open-source projects with really good documentation: The Linux man pages (documenting the Linux API), Tcl/Tk and Perl. And as far as end-user docs go, LibreOffice is fairly decent, though not in the same league as PostgreSQL.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mstefanro (1965558)

          > The Linux man pages (documenting the Linux API)
          No.

        • by jbolden (176878)

          I'd be careful on that one. This is about Oracle and well they have PostgresSQL beat by a mile: http://www.oracle.com/pls/db121/homepage [oracle.com]

          And that's 100k pages is just the free stuff. They have another ten million for the people who have licenses

        • by Bacon Bits (926911) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @03:11PM (#45136025)

          Man pages are documentation in the same way that -? and --help and .conf file comments are documentation. Assuming you even know the command you want (or apropos can find it when you accidentally use the same name as the developer for something) they typically give you just enough information to know that you should be able to do what you want with the command you've found. These tools are references to remind you what you already know, not teach you what you knew you didn't know already, and certainly not to teach you what you didn't know you didn't know already.

          Mind you, most commercial documentation is crap. MS's is better than most everyone, IMX, as their documentation not only includes references but procedures as well. SQL Server's documentation in particular is quite good, although SQL documentation from any vendor is generally stellar compared to any other software product. SQLite, SQL Server, Oracle SQL, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc. All have stellar documentation.

      • by Nadaka (224565) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:30PM (#45135473)

        As opposed to Oracle error codes that are documented as "Please contact Oracle support", for shit they know about and have a patch ready for but they have you over the coals and want to extort a couple hundred grand from you.

      • by c++0xFF (1758032) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:51PM (#45135753)

        And documentation for closed-source commercial software is better, somehow?

        I'm working with a handful of closed-source products right now. None of them have any worthwhile documentation beyond a basic API description. The vendor barely supports us. At least with open-source I can see what the software does if all else fails, and there's usually a community to offer support regardless of what the project itself offers.

      • by dgatwood (11270)

        Open-source documentation is like an insomniac cat. Theoretically it exists somewhere, but no one's ever seen it.

        Cats are night hunters, so arguably they're all insomniacs. Perhaps you meant an invisible cat?

        Either way, that's not a very accurate analogy. Open Source documentation usually does exist. It just tends to be incomplete, and focused on what was considered important at the time it was written, most of which no longer applies to the current version of the software. It also tends to be written f

      • by mpe (36238) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @03:43PM (#45136427)
        Open-source documentation is like an insomniac cat. Theoretically it exists somewhere, but no one's ever seen it.

        Plenty of software is poorly documented. Alt least with OSS you always have the source code as documentation. So it's impossible for OSS to have undocumented "features". Unlike the situation with proprietary software.
      • by unixisc (2429386)

        Open-source documentation is like an insomniac cat. Theoretically it exists somewhere, but no one's ever seen it.

        And remember, in this paper Oracle is pandering to risk-averse goverment "managers" in order to get money from them.

        Well, FreeBSD's documentation seems to have quite a reputation of its own

    • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @03:10PM (#45136015)

      That is the most insulting demonstration of hubris from Oracle I have seen in a very long time.

      So, you didn't watch or read about the America's Cup this year? :-)

  • Whitepaper? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:01PM (#45135119)

    Can't we just call them advertisements like the waste of time they truly are?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:01PM (#45135129)

    the pot calling the kettle black

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:02PM (#45135137)

    Larry, wake the fuck up you dumbass.

    Half your product line was developed through open source programmers.

    Stupid mother fucker...

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And the ones he inherited from the Sun acquisition got so pissed off with working for Oracle, they all left as soon as they could.
  • by Ubi_NL (313657) <joris&ideeel,nl> on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:02PM (#45135143) Journal

    Wasnt the kernel of their unbreakable linux open source as well?

  • Hmmm .... (Score:5, Informative)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:04PM (#45135153) Homepage

    And just what fraction of Java was community-developed?

    As usual, when a company makes this kind of claim, my first thought is 'yeah right', and my second though is that it's mostly FUD to convince people to buy the crap you make.

    And, if my limited exposure to Oracle Beehive and a few other things means anything ... Oracle can produce some major-league shit code on their own. That stuff was complete garbage, wasn't even what I'd call a beta, but it was being sold as if it was solid and ready for business.

    • by c++0xFF (1758032)

      Of course this is an attempt to get people to buy Oracle. And not just any people: the US government. And not just any part of the government, the DoD in particular.

      For example ... Lots of defense systems run on Solaris. Those servers are EXPENSIVE. But now there's a massive push to virtualize everything onto cheep x86 hardware and run Linux. Oracle Database is getting similarly attacked.

      Take this as evidence that sequestration hit some defense budgets pretty hard -- enough that they're looking for rea

  • You said "Government-sponsored community development approaches to software creation lack the financial incentives of commercial companies to produce low-defect, well-documented code."

    What you really meant was "Unlike proprietary, hidden commercial code, Government-sponsored back doors in software can't be found in the traditional, open-source, many-eyes, well-documented code.

    But that probably doesn't rake in the profits, does it?

  • by jdunn14 (455930) <jdunn@@@iguanaworks...net> on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:06PM (#45135175) Homepage

    There are many other types of incentives and I have rarely done my best work for strictly financial ones. When contributing to an open source project you have to think that somewhere someone will look at the code you write and have the ability to publicly shame you if you do something truly stupid. Standing, respect, whatever you want to call it, is a big motivator for many people. If the same thing happens in many businesses there *may* be consequences, but often as long as it works well enough to collect the customer's money it ships. Personally, I've found more fugly code turds in various closed source projects than I've touched than in the open source world.

    • Personally, I've found more fugly code turds in various closed source projects than I've touched than in the open source world.

      Is code the only aspect of note in an open source project?

      How is the project named? Is it something reminiscent of the function (like PaintShop Pro, Photoshop, Internet Explorer) or something entirely random, forcing more cognitive load on an uninformed user (Gimp, Firefox, Juice)? Does it have a newish, edgy name to give it that extra sizzle (pantyshot, upskirt [zdnet.com]).

      How is the project configured? Is is a list of poorly-written technobabble [latexeditor.org]? Does the installation instructions begin with the history of the proje

    • When contributing to an open source project you have to think that somewhere someone will look at the code you write and have the ability to publicly shame you if you do something truly stupid. Standing, respect, whatever you want to call it, is a big motivator for many people.

      Written by someone who clearly values their reputation more than their bank account. I don't think Larry Ellison even realizes that people like you exist, let alone the fact that most of the best developers hold those same values.

  • by finkployd (12902) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:07PM (#45135179) Homepage

    Go decompile some oracle fusion middleware java code sometime. I assure you that what you find will not inspire confidence.

    • by Nadaka (224565)

      decompiling any code will not inspire confidence. Decompilation doesn't necessarily reproduce the original code.

      • by finkployd (12902)

        Of course, but I'm talking more about overall project structuring, not line by line minutia.

    • I had to do this very recently with an Oracle product who's documentation was inadequate.

      The fact is, it is very expensive to record every detail of highly configurable and pluggable software where the line between internal and external workings is so blurry. In this case having access to the source code can be much cheaper, as it allows the channel/community to dig out the nasty details if/when needed.

    • Or just install an Oracle Client. If you're lucky, it works. Also Oracle DB is a pain in the ass (from a developer's perspective):
      - 30 char limit for names? WTF? It's not 1992
      - no auto-incrementing column (can't even use a sequence as the default value). Supposedly this awesome new feature is coming soon...
      - Timestamp With Timezone is awesome, until you want to index it
      - What's the deal with the number types? NUMBER(10), where is int32, int64?
  • by Zelig (73519) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:07PM (#45135181) Homepage

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you. Then they fight you, then you win.

  • IMHO, wouldn't Java be a example of the contrary to this? I don't know any OSS utilities or operating systems that have had as many issues as Java has had, allowing an attacker to seize control of multiple platforms.

    The only thing that came close would have been sendmail in the '90s, and that lasted about 6-9 months.

    Of course, Solaris is a different beast altogether, and it has stood the test of time, security-wise. However, this is more of Sun's creation than Oracle's.

    • by slackergod (37906)

      Don't forget the open-source MySQL, which was of such good quality Oracle purchased it for a HUGE amount of money, despite already having a database product (as their primary product no less!).

      • by gstoddart (321705)

        Don't forget the open-source MySQL, which was of such good quality Oracle purchased it for a HUGE amount of money, despite already having a database product (as their primary product no less!).

        I question how much of that was related to the quality of MySQL, and how much was controlling something people were using as an alternative to Oracle. Oracle might have been willing to pay a premium to be in control of it (I'm not suggesting MySQL wasn't any good, just that I don't trust Oracle).

        From what I've seen o

        • by slackergod (37906)

          If it was good enough that the market was choosing it as an alternative to Oracle (to the tune of $1billion), I think that's pretty good proof of quality right there (at least as far as the end users' TCO was concerned).

      • by jbolden (176878)

        Oracle bought Sun. Sun bought MySQL.

    • by TopSpin (753) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:47PM (#45135699) Journal

      wouldn't Java be a example of the contrary to this?

      Yes, but not the best one. The best would be Oracle's database. Despite the fact that Oracle Database Server is not the result of a 'community-based development model,' the product has a long, ugly history of vulnerabilities. For some reason it fails to be composed of 'low-defect code,' despite apparently having all the best financial incentives. The list of vulnerabilities [cvedetails.com] is long and grows regularly.

      The only reason Oracle Database Server has never been the victim of a SQL Slammer type exploit is that it is so expensive that most instances exist only well behind corporate and government firewalls that, if not well maintained, at least exist. Many SQL Server admins apparently don't believe in firewalls.

      However, [Solaris] is more of Sun's creation than Oracle's.

      Likewise with Java.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:10PM (#45135229)

    As we will see, total cost of ownership (TCO) for open source software often exceeds that of commercial software. While minimizing capital expenses by acquiring “free” open source software is appealing, the up front cost of any software endeavor represents only a small fraction of the total outlay over the lifecycle of ownership and usage.

    I had a similar discussion once with an engineer. We were looking at the numbers and I doubted some of the numbers. the engineer replied, "Well, that number came from somewhere!"

    Me: "Yeah, out of someone's ass!"

    Financial numbers are not physical constants where there's empirical evidence to back it up like say 'g'.

    And the thing is, there aren't necessarily lies. You can apportion costs in many different ways and still adhere to FASB and to IRS rules.

    tl;dr: Let me at those numbers and I'll prove that any Oracle solution costs way more than any F/OSS solution - and it'll pass FASB and IRS muster.

  • by stox (131684) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:19PM (#45135335) Homepage

    when you are silly enough to buy it from Oracle. Several shops, I am aware of, are dropping Oracle Linux because their support is worse than useless.

    It almost seems that they are trying to prove open source doesn't work by supporting it so badly.

  • Because Java is defect-free.

  • Very strange and hypocritical.

    Especially since Oracle owns several products that are open-source (some that started off as open source as well).

    Let's see....

    VirtualBox (it has an open source edition)
    MySQL
    OpenSolaris
    Java
    Oracle Linux (Oracle repackaged version of RHEL and not started from a company they bought out)
    And Oracle Linux is used as a base for the following product lines from Oracle:
    Oracle Exadata
    Oracle Exalogic
    Ora

  • not entirely false (Score:2, Informative)

    by smash (1351)

    Compare the level of integration and usability between say, OS X or BeOS, to your typical linux distribution. Compare how many times a typical component of the open source ecosystem goes through a major API breaking re-write because the core design was so badly broken that maintaining API compatibility was either too difficult or impossible.

    Open source is many things, but a generator of superior code, reliably, it is not.

    There is masses of half-assed, broken, wretched and downright brain-damaged open

    • by roc97007 (608802)

      You're right.

      But you're also right that the big advantage of open source, as anyone who has posted a code fix can say, is that it can be fixed. And the fix is scrutinized by other developers and knowledgeable users, so half-assed fixes are more likely to be called out. I submit that this is especially important with security issues, for several reasons.

      How often have we had to endure for years (sometimes decades) bugs in commercial software that get passed on from one version to the next with absolutely n

    • I don't have mod points today, so I'll reply and add some more supporting material. The parent's point on reliability is dead on.

      When it comes to cost, we've done a lot of market research and internal analysis on the actual costs of basing a business on open source. When properly accounted for, open source can be much costlier than closed source alternatives. The basic reason is simple: open source software stacks take time to maintain.

      Most organizations that use open source software have full time people

    • Yes, there are some gems, but they are hidden amongst many many times more garbage.

      You say that as if it doesn't apply to proprietary software as well. Your metric is stupid and if you think it's a good way of measuring, you are stupid. Make no doubt about it: Sturgeon's Law applies to most everything, including proprietary software and FOSS. And it's amazing what kind of garbage people will pay lots of money for in niche usage.

    • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @03:32PM (#45136289) Homepage

      There is masses of half-assed, broken, wretched and downright brain-damaged open source code out there, and anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. Much of it is written as a quick and dirty hack to solve an individual's problem and then released, with scant regard to long term maintainability. Yes, there are some gems, but they are hidden amongst many many times more garbage. The good thing is you can fix it, if needed, and the software will evolve. But typically commercial software has gone through that process several times before it gets to market, because despite what people here may say about microsoft, not many people will pay good money for completely broken crap that doesn't work.

      Many companies have paid ridiculous amounts of money for code that doesn't work, particularly custom and semi-custom code. The NHS in the UK scrapped a >10 billion GBP - that's 16 billion USD - national healthcare system. Vertical integrators that have a stranglehold on certain professions are often full of horrible, horrible code. Insane amounts of spaghetti code have been made by cheap outsourcing companies to go into "commercial software". Closed source has its gems. Open source has its gems. But as a broad generalization it's the pot calling the kettle black, both have a huge spread. Often it's just good vs better or bad vs less mediocre and the question to pay or not depends on whether a $50k+ worker could be 1% more effective - that's $500 - with that tool or not.

      Personally I find there's a difference of layers, closed source software doesn't sell unless it looks good on the surface with user interface and hand-holding documentation, comes with buzzword compliance, feature checklists and fancy demos of the capabilities. Open source is more grab it, put it through its paces and see if it works for you. Doesn't have to be so pretty to look at, but be a solid workhorse with detailed technical documentation but often a high learning curve. It's usually more about manpower though than anything else, often you realize there's five open source developers trying to compete with a hundred closed source developers and it's not so much a better of the quality of the coders but simply about being outgunned.

    • not many people will pay good money for completely broken crap that doesn't work.

      That's exactly what corporate people do all the time. Salespeople blitz into big corporation/government manager's offices and sell a bill of goods. The managers are hardly competent enough to know if anything is any good. Then later when staff complains the same salespeople are back to sell upgrades or consulting.

  • by thevirtualcat (1071504) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:23PM (#45135397)

    Oracle: "We're buying Sun. Next step is to dismantle (MySQL,) close (Solaris, Java,) dissolve (OpenOffice) and generally disrupt all of Sun's open source properties that we can."

    Community: "What? You can't do that!"

    Oracle: "Watch us!"

    Community: "Well, we'll just fork it."

    Oracle: "S---! The forks (MariaDB, Percona, OpenIndiana, LibreOffice) and their pre-existing competitors (Linux, FreeBSD, Dalvik) are getting more popular than our versions! READY THE FUD CANNONS!"

  • worthy of mentioning...

    unbreakable linux?
    MySQL?
    solaris? you know the project you guys killed for no apparent reason?
  • Oracle has been losing mindshare in the government market for years. They cost too damn much and people are starting to realize that PostgreSQL, MySQL and MS SQL Server really do the exact same damn thing as Oracle for 95% of the meaningful use cases out there. Add on to that that a highly qualified system administrator can learn how to become a decent administrator of any of those with a little ramp up time and of course Oracle is scared of open source (and Microsoft but that's a different story).

    • by jbolden (176878)

      same damn thing as Oracle for 95% of the meaningful use cases out there

      Thank you for being honest about the fact that Oracle is still way ahead on the niche high end. Your statement I can agree with.

  • ...calling it more insecure than company developed products.

    Prove it. Lets see the source.

  • by Dega704 (1454673) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:28PM (#45135453)
    Says the company that borrows from an open source project and puts the word "unbreakable in front of it..... In any case I suppose their point is supported by the fact that current government spending on proprietary software is soooo efficient. :S
  • If open source is so bad, surely maintaining open source projects is a liability, so why not sell them off to an interested party who's willing to take that headache away for them? I'm sure they'd find a few interested parties if the price was right.

    I really can't stand hypocrites.

  • by Daetrin (576516) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:32PM (#45135483)
    Community developed code is insecure! Community developed code is inferior! Open source must be exterminated! Exterminate! Exterminate!

    Of course in the show the Daleks are supposed to be a huge threat, but they're also kind of laughable. Slow, clumsy, thrown together using whatever crap happened to by lying around at the time.

    So i guess that kind of fits Oracle and its software as well.
  • > Oracle claims that TCO (total cost of ownership) goes up with the use of open source.

    Sure. In related news, Weston Bakeries says that homemade bread is more expensive and not nearly as high quality as Wonder Bread.

    > 'Government-sponsored community development approaches to software creation lack the financial incentives of commercial companies to produce low-defect, well-documented code.'

    Yeah, because community development doesn't care about bugs because they can sell you the software and then sel

  • McDonalds proclaims home-cooked meals more expensive and difficult to make than eating at their restaurant.

  • by Stone316 (629009) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:34PM (#45135509) Journal

    Do you expect them to say open source has a lower TCO? They are bidding/positioning themselves for contracts. If you were a real estate agent on a client interview and asked about a competitor, would you give them a glowing review? I doubt it.

    There are many factors which contribute to TCO and the code itself is just one piece.

    Security, both OpenSource and Oracle have fallen short in this area. In some cases Oracle has left security bugs sitting for a very long time. Sometimes until called on it publicly. However, with open source your relying on the code maintainers to put in a fix quick. Alot of times they do but that depends on the software and how actively supported it is. Sure, you can modify the code yourself but that affects TCO.

    We have both Oracle and open source software in house. Based on our experiences i'm not sure that the open source software has a lower TCO than its more commercial alternative. The upfront costs to open source are cheaper but the long term support costs were higher. Before I get flamed, i'm talking about a particular open source product. Since i'm posting from work i'll leave specifics out of it. But the point is, just because its open source doesn't always mean overall TCO is lower. You have to do the analysis on a product by product basis and factor in both upfront and long term costs.

  • Have archaeologists discovered something with a _higher_ total cost of ownership than running Oracle?

    I'm having trouble believing that is possible.

  • Holy shit, this is incredible news!

  • A company with the track record of Oracle does not get to have an opinion on who can write "secure" code.

  • One of the things I have noticed about commercial software is this...if you pay enough money, they will make sure things work for you.

    I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, just relaying my experience. Our company is a big CA and Oracle customer, and we use a lot of their products in production. All of it is absolute crap, and extremely poorly documented. I can't believe how much work it is to get an Oracle instance running and properly secured/tuned compared to something like SQL Server. But, when you

    • The same applies to some open source projects. If you're willing to throw the resources at a project; whether that be your own patches and improvements, or financial resources, you're likely to get what you want out of project.

      I've seen some of this so-called "superior" closed source code, and some of it is insanely awful, poorly documented cruft.

  • The skill required to successfully and economically blend source code into a commercially viable product is relatively scarce. It should not be done directly at government expense

    That is why you pay people like Red Hat, Suse, and many other OSS providers, and you know what Oracle, it is a lot cheaper than what you provide

  • Overbloated software from private sector sold to government at exorbitant cost with large helping of vendor lock-in to ensure future licensing scheme and render alternatives incompatible.

    • by mjwalshe (1680392)
      yes i had to work on OWS at british telcom "because they standardized on it and it was a pile of **** and they where worse than useless in back porting y2k fixes for anything the bleeding edge versions of their software .

      Hint you cant just upgrade a mission critical system to the latest version and cross your fingers in the military - oops that fire mission went AWOL , any how who needed that hospital anyway ;-)
  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @02:48PM (#45135717)

    As a user of both Open source software and Oracle products, I can say that, at least with Open source you're well prepared for the complete lack of support when a major issue arises. With Oracle, often you're not only surprised by the lack of support, but the fact that their support structure often leads you in the completely wrong direction, usually to squeeze consulting services fees out of you.

  • I'm not a programmer but I use Oracle products regularly and I guarantee that the source code is so full of WTF moments it would make your head explode.

  • They are obviously struggling with how to handle both MySQL and the open source community...
    We've been using MySQL as a very small part of our application; in fact so small that SQLite could have done the job. Because of licensing costs we decided to move to MariaDB and this is the email we got when they understood what was happening:

    I was a little surprised to be honest with your decision of no longer using MySQL as a platform for your 5 modules and the fact that XXX is currently looking at different f
  • Because, you know, how could the open source community have developed code with the exceptional quality of a product offering like, uh, oracle forms for instance?
  • Oracle would do better by not mimicking Microsoft of 10 years ago, and instead simply state the REAL value of corporate software development for government use: Built-in back-doors for the NSA.

  • Research has proven the opposite to be true. So Oracle is barking up the wrong tree with this strategy. In an open world, lies don't work.
  • by laird (2705) <lairdp AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @03:03PM (#45135907) Journal

    The question is who you want to pay, and what you want the cost model to be. That is, if it's something with both an FOSS and COTS option.

    If you want to pay a vendor a fee, typically based on capacity + professional services, go that way.

    If you want to use a FOSS technology, and pay only for professional services, go that way.

    Generally I think the FOSS model is much better for customers, because:
    1) The customer can scale the business without additional licensing costs.
    2) The customer has the flexibility to choose any vendor (or internal staff) to do the work.

    So, for example, my last startup grew to 70m users on FOSS software, with hundreds of servers, with only physical server, hosting and bandwidth costs (plus a small dev team, which I would need in any case). If I'd used a licensed OS, database, etc., that cost would have made my business not viable.

  • Oh, yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Tuesday October 15, 2013 @06:55PM (#45138123) Homepage Journal
    I was contracting at Sun a while back and heard some engineers talking some shit about the Linux kernel on the way to lunch one day. Meanwhile some Sun guy on the project I was on had just coded the entire authentication system using static java methods. Worked great, as long as only one person logged on. They didn't notice this until it was time to take the project live. I've seen plenty of commercially deployed code, buddy, and the one thing you can say about it is it's uniformly shit. I've held positions where I've had to look at chunks of old commercial UNIX source and seen published example drivers for OS/2 and Windows. I wasn't impressed. I wasn't impressed at all.

    What I've found over the years is, just because you get paid to develop code for someone doesn't mean you crap unicorns and daisies. I've also found that all of the installations I've run across that were running Oracle (or DB2) really didn't need to be running Oracle or DB2. It's been overkill for every position I've worked at. Of course, they end up needing it anyway because of their crappy table design and because they're afraid to ever throw anything away when they're done with it. But if they'd been paying attention to their business process and designing their tables correctly, they could have saved themselves a LOT of money with a copy of postgres running on some Linux box somewhere!

  • by Torvac (691504) on Wednesday October 16, 2013 @02:13AM (#45140497)
    i will always chose an inferior product over a company that is going to fuck me over every once in a while even though i pay them huge amounts of money. oracles business model depends on curruption, cronyism and customers not knowing shit and thats just despicable.

No one gets sick on Wednesdays.

Working...