Oracle's CTO: No Way a 'Normal' Person Would Move To AWS (zdnet.com) 253
Amazon may have turned off its Oracle data warehouse in favor of Amazon Web Services database technology, but no one else in their right mind would, Oracle's outspoken co-founder and CTO Larry Ellison says. From a report: "We have a huge technology leadership in database over Amazon," Ellison said on a conference call following the release of Oracle's second quarter financial results. "In terms of technology, there is no way that... any normal person would move from an Oracle database to an Amazon database." During last month's AWS re:Invent conference, AWS CTO Werner Vogels gave an in-the-weeds talk explaining why Amazon turned off its Oracle data warehouse. In a clear jab at Oracle, Vogels wrote off the "90's technology" behind most relational databases. Cloud native databases, he said, are the basis of innovation.
The remarks may have gotten under Ellison's skin. Moving from Oracle databases to AWS "is just incredibly expensive and complicated," he said Monday. "And you've got to be willing to give up tons of reliability, tons of security, tons of performance... Nobody, save maybe Jeff Bezos, gave the command, 'I want to get off the Oracle database." Ellison said that Oracle will not only hold onto its 50 percent relational database market share but will expand it, thanks to the combination of Oracle's new Generation 2 Cloud infrastructure and its autonomoius database technology. "You will see rapid migration of Oracle from on-premise to the Oracle public cloud," he said. "Nobody else is going to go through that forced march to go on to the Amazon database."
The remarks may have gotten under Ellison's skin. Moving from Oracle databases to AWS "is just incredibly expensive and complicated," he said Monday. "And you've got to be willing to give up tons of reliability, tons of security, tons of performance... Nobody, save maybe Jeff Bezos, gave the command, 'I want to get off the Oracle database." Ellison said that Oracle will not only hold onto its 50 percent relational database market share but will expand it, thanks to the combination of Oracle's new Generation 2 Cloud infrastructure and its autonomoius database technology. "You will see rapid migration of Oracle from on-premise to the Oracle public cloud," he said. "Nobody else is going to go through that forced march to go on to the Amazon database."
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Got it (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I am getting old, This seems like the Statement a company makes shortly before its collapse. Mostly due to not understanding its customer and their needs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is Oracle, though. Callous disregard for or showing a lack of understanding of their customers or their needs is Larry's Company moto.
Oracle is the IBM of legacy databases. Nobody got fired for choosing Oracle. Anything Java with Enterprise in the name gets tied to Oracle for storage quickly. And every certified Oracle DBA on your payroll with remind you of those facts.
Meanwhile Payroll is quietly weeping at the zeros on those Oracle DBA paychecks. But you can't hear them because Purchasing is yell
Re: (Score:3)
One point. IBM is the IBM of legacy databases. Other than that, spot on.
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly is a "cloud native database"?
A distributed database that is designed to span data centers and withstand serious network faults. A couple of examples would be CockroachDB [cockroachlabs.com] and google spanner [google.com].
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
Or even when old people try to make us feel guilty or nostalgic for the bankruptcy or such loser retail firms such as Sears or ToysRus.. They just want everything to stay the same, for us to keep buying the same junk so they can make a profit without ever doing anything new.
Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
> Nobody, save maybe Jeff Bezos, gave the command, 'I want to get off the Oracle database."
I've never heard anybody use Oracle who wasn't saying that. Every oracle customer I've dealt with has "getting rid of this fucking goddamn shit" as a #1 priority.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard a story where a company was audited for license compliance. Some very minor issue was found (one thing misinstalled on one client PC, that was not being used). Oracle wanted the company to commit long term to their cloud platform or stop using Oracle all together in 30 days. They did not know this client already had a project to migrate off Oracle that was basically ready (they would cancel Oracle within 6-12 months). They went with it and took the 30 days option, putting extra effort in finishing the last bits. The face the saleswoman made was awesome. Turned out well also, migration was a success.
Re: (Score:3)
> I heard a story where a company was audited for license compliance.
I was tangentially involved in an Oracle license audit at a telco a few years ago. Everybody hated Oracle afterwards for their slimy business practices, even if we personally didn't have to pay for it.
Re: Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ditto. It sounds like Larry is taking the same line as his Oracle sales staff, as in if the potential customer doesn't like what they have to offer, insult them and threaten them into buying it or renewing it. I've actually heard them tell people that their "career would go nowhere unless they purchased Oracle".
Re: (Score:2)
"No one ever got fired for buying IBM!"
Re: Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I have seen many ancient or old applications in financial business and telcos that still use oracle databases somewhere but the proposed big updates that are planned decidedly don't anymore.
Everything Oracle is legacy software that is often deeply ingrained into the companys infrastructure and part of the expensive bugs that will be fixed "real soon now".
I think Oracle can still survive on this like a tick in a companys side, but most plans for the future that have been made are getting rid of Oracle.
Nobody
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. The place I work at several years ago made the decision to dump Oracle where it could. After they bought Sun, the company bailed on Sun gear as well going with "white box" x86 boxes, VMs, and Red Hat. We still have a few Oracle clusters but most of the rest of the databases are ms-sql, a few mysql, informix, and postgresql. Personally I don't think they should have such a broad swath of DBs but it seems to be working for the company.
[John]
Re:Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
Every oracle customer I've dealt with has "getting rid of this fucking goddamn shit" as a #1 priority.
We aren't getting rid of Oracle DB because of the product (it is solid, reliable and consistent), we are dumping it because dealing with Oracle the company is a f*cking nightmare and they treat you like shit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Stock prices rise when short term gains are realized. They fall when company profitability falls (either because the company is investing in long term strategic goals and costs go up or when revenues fall short).
In my experience, people who are always happy about stock prices going up tend not to think about the next few years. Ditto with people who are always upset any time a stock they own goes down in price.
Re:Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're both right. And so is Ellison. Just because everybody who uses Oracle wants to get away from it doesn't mean that there's an easy path for doing so. People don't use Oracle because they want to. They use it because they don't think there's a viable alternative, and because their business logic is built around the sorts of consistency guarantees provided by SQL and transactions and all that other fun stuff that alternatives either don't provide or don't provide as well.
Re:Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
For comparison, we have one of our major in-House software products running on oracle (our CRM/ERP) and one running on SQL Server (our POS).
- Oracle "Just works" for years without any problems, while SQL server constantly needs babysitting.
- When an error occurs, the SQL Server error messages are pretty worthless, while the Oracle error message pinpoint the exact cause and the exact location of the error.
- We get maybe 2-3 "unexplainable" problems a week with SQL Server, and maybe 2-3 a year with Oracle.
- For software development things like the "readers block writers" approach of SQL Server gives you a ton of headaches that just "work out of the box" with Oracles locking model of only writers blocking writers.
- A lot of things that require different tools and different languages in SQL server are just built into the standard Oracle SQL engine. For example you can Access Oracle OLAP with standard SQL queries, but you need a different tool chain to access the Analysis Services of SQL Server.
Having said that, I'm also having the "how to possible get away from Oracle" in the back of my head, but that is solely based in the way their licensing terms keep getting worse and worse all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
"Just works" for years without any problems
So does Firebird. Big fucking deal, huh? Isn't "doesn't need constant babysitting" a pretty low bar in the 21st century?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:4, Informative)
Any time I read a comment like by the above, complaining about a well used stack with problems multiple times per week, all I can think is PEBKAC.
I recently ran into a shop that was rebooting their win 2012r2 boxes Sunday nights bc they were 'unreliable'..
People know what they are comfortable with. And, afaict, dont bother reading error messages they don't expect. (if anybody has managed to write an error message that people will read and correct based on, I would love to know your voodoo.) similar to how people alway blame the network.. (hint, it isn't the network)
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to know the ways in which Oracle is straight-up superior to Microsoft SQL Server, especially as they would pertain to a medium-sized business that is running an actual product on it (not just acting as a data hosting outsourcer).
Oracle is the most efficient in terms of how much hardware you need. I don't think you come out ahead even as a medium-sized business, though, as Oracle is so expensive. Where it shines is when you're "scaling up" - when you're past the elbow in the cost curve for server prices. That's why "scaling horizontally" caught on - prices get very non-linear when you try to scale up.
Re: (Score:3)
Oracles stock prices says differently.
One good, hard layoff or bout of book-juggling by the CFO can pump a stock. Let's see what happens a few quarters later...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:2)
Share prices depend on what people think they're worth. There's no relationship to the company.
A dead mouse could have rising share values. It's unlikely, but it could.
Re: (Score:2)
"Dead cat" is the usual expression. When stock prices go up just because they've gone down so far recently due to legitimate bad news, that's called "the dead cat bounce".
Re:Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
Only if you're running a Fortune 500 and need a multi-server r/w database cluster or a giant data warehouse. For the vast majority of sites PostgreSQL is easier to use and just works.
Re:Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or a much smaller number of hours getting Postgresql to do the job you really wanted, rather than the piss-poor job that Oracle was doing.
Costless man hours and wasted resources when you could of paid someone else to do it for you and actually concentrated on selling the product you are producing.
Of course, you still have the option of paying someone else with Postgresql. You just would not have to pay them so much, or for so long, or pledge your firstborn son, or sign contracts with Lucifer.
If you need a database, then dealing with Oracle is the option from hell. Yes, I have managed successful migrations from Oracle to Postgresql. No I wont touch your Oracle installation with a 10 foot pole.
Re:Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
Linking to C for instance; Oracle's way of doing this was to use a preprocessor that generated large amount of untraceable code. Postgres just had a proper API implemented in a library.
Re: (Score:3)
>And you probably spend countless man hours trying to get Postgresql to perform the same way Oracle does.
Why the heck would you want that? That makes as much sense as trying to get eg. Python perform the same way as Cobol does.
Oracle and Cobol had their time and now they are just a legacy - nobody wants them but they are difficult to get rid off.
Re: Wow is Larry ever tired of being wrong? (Score:3, Funny)
Could "have" you fucking moron
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
He says no one is willing to give up security and move to the cloud, then talks about how everyone is going to migrate to the Oracle cloud.
To be fair, he wasn't comparing Oracle to "the cloud" but to AWS in particular. Even if that is still an unfavorable comparison, it is not a question of cloud vs on-prem.
er... (Score:4, Funny)
Not dealing with Oracle = big win (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have a huge technology leadership in database over Amazon," Ellison said on a conference call following the release of Oracle's second quarter financial results. "In terms of technology, there is no way that... any normal person would move from an Oracle database to an Amazon database."
I'm not qualified to evaluate the relative technical merits of the products but I can say without reservation that a HUGE win of going with Amazon is not having to deal with Oracle as a business. I've had that experience and Oracle can suck it as far as I'm concerned.
Re: (Score:3)
PostgreSQL is superior to Oracle. MySQL is garbage, Microsoft SQL Server can't scale to what Oracle or Postgre can do, and MongoDB is a different type of indexing system entirely.
Oracle has many other business products built around their platform which may be superior to anything else out there, at least anything else gathered all in one place. Oracle's business, as you've noticed, is garbage, and their products are terrible; they simply don't have any competition I can immediately identify.
Re: (Score:2)
I work with all of the databases that you've mentioned, and I'd wager that MS SQL has closed the gap with Oracle in recent years, especially at a certain price points. I rather like MySQL for certain projects, but unfortunately Oracle owns that now too.
Re: Not dealing with Oracle = big win (Score:2)
Re: Not dealing with Oracle = big win (Score:4, Interesting)
Could be. I've seen both scale to thousands of users on equivalent hardware.
One edge Oracle has is RAC. MS SQL has AlwaysOn Clusters, but that doesn't offer the same type of N+1 solution as RAC (not to mention that you have to code around it for it to really be effective).
Thanks for not starting a flame war :-)
Re: (Score:3)
I rather like MySQL for certain projects, but unfortunately Oracle owns that now too.
MariaDB [mariadb.org] no good for you?
Re: (Score:3)
WTF? MySQL is completely non-standard. The only way it's fast is to throw away transactions.
They can all lock you in, but most will let you write 90% ANSI SQL. Not MySQL though.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I should've said "small and simple projects." If you're doing transactions or anything remotely fancy, by all means move up to PostgreSQL.
Re: (Score:2)
"UPDATE tbl_foo SET bar = 5, baz = 10 WHERE qux = 10" is a transaction: if two rows have qux=10, then you can set zero, one, or two of those rows to have bar=5, baz=10, or both. The database engine will ensure that zero or two rows are altered, and that all alterations are done to each row--or, specifically, that nothing is done or that everything is done.
With two rows matching qux=10 above, you have five possible outcomes (there are more possible states, but any order of operations will pass through ex
Re: Not dealing with Oracle = big win (Score:2)
And?
You use PostgreSQL for the normalized data, stoted procedures, etc. You can then optuonally extrude denormalized tables that still need SQL operations, which you place in MySQL.
You don't then need transactions or stored procedures for MySQL because it's read only pre-generated digested data.
You now have all the power of the backend system, be it PostgreSQL, Ingres (now with a new name), DB/2, Informix, or whatever, with the speed of MySQL. The views, being on a different DB, don't lock up tables or slow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I tried multiple times to apply for their advertised jobs but the job application software kept breaking.
Meh.... Two giants bickering (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, it's been years since I worked with a place that used Oracle as a database. Clearly, it's deployed in a lot of large scale operations out there. But my hunch is, many of them will keep using it as long as it remains a supported option - simply because you don't want to risk your business changing something established, that works.
It doesn't really matter if databases hosted via AWS are as good or better? What you have going on out there is a lot of people choosing AWS hosting for NEW projects that get deployed. If they're going to do something new and "cloudified", AWS is a primary candidate for the job.
Oracle's database is becoming a legacy product, much like a lot of IBM's offerings in the minicomputer days. When you're the size of an operation like eBay or a major airline and everything runs on Oracle databases, you're not going to be quick to tear that all out and try to reconstruct it on a different platform. So they have a nearly guaranteed revenue stream from it for years to come. But yeah, it's "90's tech" at this point and people aren't clamoring to roll out brand new projects that are powered by Oracle databases on the back end.
And it's hilarious to see how similar that is... (Score:2)
... to bickering toddlers in a sandpit.
Re:Meh.... Two giants bickering (Score:5, Interesting)
The last time I worked within an Oracle-based warehouse was 2012. Since then, I've been exposed to any number of others, including taking over a on-prem SQL Server warehouse and moving to BigQuery and, currently, deciding how to handle the Redshift warehouse provided to us by a DBaaS vendor.
BigQuery is Petabyte scale, no infrastructure to manage, lightning fast, incredibly inexpensive compared to on-prem SQL Server, and is supported by a ton of toolsets. Redshift is basically the same, with the added negative bonus of having to support it with instances.
While 6 years is an eternity in the analytics space, we're talking about hours-long queries being reduced to single seconds. I'd love to see Oracle be able to keep up with these cloud-DB technologies.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're looking to use the same paradigm with a cloud warehouse that you were using before (e.g. just copying the SQL, such as joins, over and having it work the same way, you're going to have a bad time).
Data Scientists are great at modeling and providing insights on the outputs of their models; what they are not good at are building operational pipelines and deploying their models at scale. That's what traditional ETL developers (now known as Data Engineers) are around to do.
So, yeah, if you're trying t
re: IBM (Score:3)
I'm really just picking on IBM because they're so predictably known for either A) giving up on good, solid technologies they sold, or B) supporting legacy products past the length of time they make logical sense to keep using. (Again, a lot of places are going to do that because change is hard and brings uncertainty and a need to re-train people. But still -- when you look at situations like government offices suffering along with ancient systems? You think IBM, because they're one of the few companies who
Oracle = the Nazis (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
"If you had to explain the Nazis to someone who had never heard of WWII but was an Oracle customer, there's a very good chance that you'd end up using an Oracle allegory. "
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oracle = the Nazis (Score:4, Funny)
If they could do it on their support forums, they would.
They're always hostile and defensive.
They spend all their time trying to deny your issue has anything to do with them and then when you solve it yourself, they try to make it sound like you were lying about it ever being an Oracle issue.
- "That doesn't sound like an Oracle issue to me."
- "The error message is coming from the oracle driver. It starts with ORA-"
- "You still haven't proven to me that it was an Oracle issue."
- "Then why'd the problem resolve when I upgraded the Oracle drivers?"
- "If you had proper Oracle training, you would have installed the right drivers the first time."
- "Why do I need training to install drivers?"
Re:Oracle = the Nazis (Score:5, Funny)
Oh man this 1000 times. The Oracle forums are probably the most hostile that I've ever encountered. You could get more help by posting your issue on 4chan.
Re:Oracle = the Nazis (Score:5, Insightful)
Atlassian are heading in the same direction but in a more passive-aggressive way.
Re: (Score:2)
They've started charging for the JDK.
I don't know about other people, but they seem to be fond of gassing themselves.
Right... (Score:2)
No sane person would've bought Oracle software in the first place, yet here we are...
Translation (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't worry, all of our customers are sufficiently locked in. No matter how much they hate us, and no matter how shitty our product is, they will never pay the enormous cost of transitioning to something else.
Re: (Score:2)
so very true - I only have worked, in more than 10 years of DBA professional experience, with ORACLE DB on legacy software: make something new with ORACLE DB seems something insane to me...
Re: (Score:2)
Flypaperware. Once you install it, you're stuck, BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
Really? (Score:2)
Lying like an oracle sales rep proper (Score:5, Interesting)
I've personally architected and implemented a move from two large exadata boxes (abut 1PB, 120GB per day EDW) to a mix of aurora, redshift and gcp's bigquery. It is indeed possible and we were not alone. Just join any AWS ReInvent event and talk with the people you meet there.
The thing that makes moving difficult is Exadata made it extremely easy to write well-performing bad sql, usually powering some OLAP-based BI. Forklifting that crap is not an option.
Thing is, you don't just get databases in the cloud, you get managed ETL, efficient queues, cloud functions, you get well thought IAM (at least in AWS, GCP's is still-but-not-for-long lagging behind), and all of that allows you to rearchitect significantly. We got rid of, for instance, Oracle OBIEE which generates hideously inefficient SQL queries, and replaced it with a mix of google data studio (yeah, that basic) and microstrategy for the analysts that need it.
The migration cost us around 3m eur, and paid for itself the very next year. We had zero infra-related incidents and performance is well above what Oracle offered, cost is about 10x less, and we havent even begun optimizing it.
Last but not least, It was actually pleasant to work with and we had near-zero regrettable attrition among developers during the project. I'd never ever consider working in an Oracle shop ever again, for anything less than enough-to-retire-in-two-years kind of money.
Two other thing to note. AWS has very good support, none of that 'it works as designed, ticket closed' shit. You get greybeards responding to your tickets directly. GCP has somewhat good support but they Really want the enterprise market so once you cut through google's internal bureaucracy and get their attention - it is a breeze. The only notable exception is Amazon. We found that a lot of what's in the documentation is not fully accurate, and scalability beyond proof-of-concept sized applications is nearly always a problem, and some of the problems are wicked. We have since decided to not do any Azure and rely purely on GCP and AWS.
I am a CTO of a 25bn company. I've previously spent 10 years as owner of Oracle-based BI team at a 100bn company with money to burn. I would not exactly call myself a not-normal-person :-)
Re:Lying like an oracle sales rep proper (Score:4, Informative)
"The only notable exception is Amazon"
Of course I meant Azure :-)
Ellison is laughing... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...all the way to his own private Hawaiian island (Lanai)!
You know why he bought that island, right? It’s inown for pineapples. He’s able to cut out the middle man and directly source the pineapples to use on/in Oracle customers.
AWS customers don't hate AWS (Score:5, Insightful)
Oracle customers hate Oracle though. I hear more complaints about dealing with Oracle's business organization than complaints about Oracle's technology.
Other famous quotes (Score:2)
- No way a normal person will buy a Tesla
History keeps repeating itself
Re: (Score:2)
First they ignore you (Score:2)
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
Re: (Score:2)
That quote is pretty stupid. I mean, sometimes they laugh at you, then they keep laughing while you keep doing stupid shit. Or they fight you and win.
I mean, compare it to:
First you're born
Then you get drunk and gamble in Vegas
Then you hit the multimillion dollar slots jackpot.
I mean, sure, it's a chain of events, and each step seems to precede the next, but there's no reason to assume each next step will occur.
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle is not god (Score:2)
Well bad news Larry (Score:2)
That's what all the normies are doing these days.
Oracle cloud? (Score:4, Insightful)
No thanks.
Re:Oracle cloud? (Score:5, Funny)
Oooo... sprung for the two CPU license, eh?
Re:Oracle cloud? (Score:5, Funny)
Two CPU license? I thought that was the 2 core license!
I mean, I kinda get it (Score:2, Insightful)
AWS is incredibly hard to get off once you start, and can get quite expensive. It's the worst solution out there. Except for hosting the server yourself and needing to maintain it. Or using Oracle. Or...
But the lock-in is pretty scary from a business point of view. I mean, if AWS raises prices by 20%, how are you going to move it to another provider? How are you going to move your data? Are you going to have to switch DB engines? Are you using the Lambda service, cause where are you going to run tha
Fight (Score:2)
Clearly we've arrived at the fight phase of ignore, laugh, fight, win. Oracle's RDBMS technology is not special; it's subject to the same commoditization cycle as everything else.
50% (Score:2)
"50 percent relational database market share" And by this, they primarily mean MySQL (the thing they bought, and is free), not Oracle Database (the thing they made, and sell). And in the MySQL world, all the major players already have or are in the process of migrating away from MySQL to MariaDB. This is even more FUD and scare tactics by Oracle. They're losing their grip, and they know it all too well internally. This is especially true in emerging markets like China, just look at the MariaDB changelog to
Shorter Larry (Score:2)
Normal people want to give me all of their money, and let me control their enterprise to boot.
So... (Score:3)
Either the summary is wrong or Oracle can't English. I don't know which is less likely.
If Oracle wasn't impressed with MySQL, why did it buy it?
PostgreSQL is a do-over of Ingres, which is almost as old as Oracle. Only, PostgreSQL has evolved and Oracle hasn't.
PostgreSQL and MySQL have better licensing terms and superior performance.
Oracle have caused severe damage to MySQL and OpenOffice, and to Java for that matter, raising concerns about the competency of staff.
Why trust a company that can't cope and does so expensively?
What makes you want to switch these days? (Score:2)
I am building a whole new kind of data management system that also does some relational DB functions. Getting early adopter
Oracle is right (Score:2)
No true Scotsman would use AWS. If you uses AWS, then you are not a true Scotsman. Q.E.D.
Obvious first step (Score:2)
Is there a proper matrix (not the Neo sort) that shows how databases compare for features, plus geaphs showing how they compare under different loads?
A proper... Oh, let's call it a review.
I mean, products like Dezign for Databases support a very large number of engines, and there are many others now obsolete and hard to obtain that may still have value in certain niches.
Yes, PostgreSQL won't match Oracle on everything, but it doesn't have to. It only has to be better for one market. Another system, perhaps
Oracle's CTO (Score:2)
Oracle's CTO: No Way a 'Normal' Person [JUST LIKE ME] Would Move To AWS
Birds of a feather flock together. Everyone around him is normal; the weird ones are those who DON'T work for or use Oracle. QED.
It's just like a lot of things we had at my old job. Some were crap-ish, some were good, and a few were great. There was ONE that was great, but just failed the bang-for-the-buck test. We bought it anyway, but IMO it was a misteak.
He's right. (Score:2)
I'd never move to AWS. Not in my right mind. From Oracle I'd always move to Maria DB or Postgres.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Price (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Oracle's are the worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Any truth to the rumor that all of O'Reilly's 'Animal' books for Oracle feature pictures of bugs on the cover?
Wrap the abstractions with wrapped abstractions (Score:2)
Everything is a wrapper for something else. A SATA harddrive is a wrapper for a bunch of motor controls and sensors. You can flip the magnets on a platter yourself if you want to.
Also doesn't Oracle control MySQL these days?
Re: (Score:2)