3 ms·
This is spot on. Regarding the last paragraph, I was once in a meeting at a very large company in which an AVP asked me and several other experienced engineers
by craftsman 11y ago
This is spot on.
Regarding the last paragraph, I was once in a meeting at a very large company in which an AVP asked me and several other experienced engineers: "Ignore the technical details; is there any reason we shouldn't purchase this large suite of Oracle products?" That was the litmus test, so yes, it's purely a safety play for many.
- eitally 11y agoThe good news is that Oracle is pretty much the only vendor like this these days, and no matter how many companies they buy, they are slowly seeing erosion of both their core business and their peripheral apps/services by upstarts ... not to mention SAP pivoting much more intelligently to the modern, cloud-based SAAS world.
- aswanson 11y agoThat is hilarious, straight out of an SNL/Onion skit. And these are the folks who run the world.
- pas 11y agoBecause it usually doesn't matter. If you are not a Google/Facebook scale op, cobbling together something with SQLite on a battery backed RAM disk is probably properly enough. I'm pretty sure that could run the store part of Amazon with enough madness thrown at it. So for most companies UX is more important than how messy your backing store is. And yes, delivering good UX requires quick iterations, and that probably means a good operational support for experimenting with various data access patterns, but - again - SQL is enough. Just throw more Hadoop at it, if not. (For specialized data stores. Or just more hardware and even more 12c instances and use that as your key-value store. Doesn't matter. Wrap it and spend more time on UX and features.) Yes, disrupting them with better technical skills is possible, but don't forget that in the end you have to provide value, and rarely a "contains only F/OSS" sticker is enough.