9 ms·

The thing you need to understand about Oracle is that it's never — well, never in my experience, and I've worked as a DBA (mostly postgres, but I have had my ha

by rosser 10y ago

The thing you need to understand about Oracle is that it's never — well, never in my experience, and I've worked as a DBA (mostly postgres, but I have had my hands on some Oracle) for a decade now — chosen by the technologists. It's chosen by management. Usually non-technical management. Often dangerously so. But Oracle support basically doesn't answer the phone unless you're regularly cutting them six-figure checks, so you kinda need that level of management to be making the decision whether or not to use the platform.

raverbashing 10y ago
Engineers need to learn how to stand their ground
- threeseed 10y ago
  That's cute. And it might even work in a startup. But likely not. But in the enterprise world nobody really cares what engineers think. You have Enterprise Architects, Technical Architects, Solution Architects etc. who get paid exorbitant amounts of money, are political animals and can masterfully straddle the line between business and technology. Most of them are ex-engineers so they aren't entirely useless and since they have their own language they will make you look stupid. Can't articulate the transition from a tactical to strategic solution and explain what business capabilities it aligns to ? Well good luck getting that past the central Enterprise Architects who will need to sign off on your choice before it heads to Procurement/Legal. Architects along with IT managers and CIOs are the people whom the famous Oracle Sales machine targets with golf games, overseas trips and fancy dinners. It's never engineers. I spent a few years at Oracle. They are a multi billion dollar company for a reason.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    Yes, those issues are important, and I was aware of them For a start, that's why I don't work (at least directly) for the enterprise world. But I've seen companies adopt open source solutions and modernize. I've also seen companies use those "legacy" technologies. They're the ones that usually go bankrupt, unless technology is a minor part of their business. And yes, as much as "corporate architecture" is 90% BS and politics, if you can at least explain why solution A is better than solution B in a way it's understood, then you did your part. And the question remains, who will pick up the phone when an open source DB fails to perform as it should. Does Red Hat provide support in that area?
    - threeseed 10y ago
      Support is the biggest issue with open source. It's why companies like RedHat, DataStax, Hortonworks, Databricks, MongoDB have all done so well. They basically took over their open source projects and provided official vendor support in the Oracle "style". They all offer certifications, training and conferences around the world for you to spend company money on.
  - bb101 10y ago
    I can confirm this. Oracle goes out of their way to make senior and upper-mid management feel like rockstars. All expenses paid meetings in attractive overseas destinations, start to finish hand holding on multi-million dollar engagements, regular contact and personal attention. Management swoon and sign the cheques. And why wouldn't they? After all, it's only the company's money, not theirs personally.
    - raverbashing 10y ago
      It will be fun if Oracle is investigated relating this practices
      - Helmet 10y ago
        Why? This is basically how the business world operates. There is nothing wrong with a private business wining and dining a potential client to swoon and sell them something.
        edblarney 10y ago
        "here is nothing wrong with a private business wining and dining a potential client to swoon and sell them something." Yes it's called 'kickbacks' and it can be illegal or considered corruption. If you were a CEO would you want your team buying a product because they were given $5000 tickets to the superbowl?
        aNoob7000 10y ago
        You will be investigating likes of Microsoft, IBM, and even Amazon. As an example, I can't stop the CIO and board at my company from talking about the cloud because of all the consultants and sales guys talking to the C suite. You want to see something really oversold right now look no further than the cloud.
        edblarney 10y ago
        'Wining and dining' is very common, but it's not necessarily considered 'corruption' because a meal is well, just a meal, after all. The occasional tickets etc. are just a 'gift' not ostensibly supposed to interfere with the purchasing decision. Of course they do on some level. But it's a fine line. It's crazy how many CEO's will let purchasing decision makers be taken on these things and junkets, I would just not allow it. But also don't doubt the ability of people to just drink koolaid. There are tons of non-thinkers out there who just 'buy' the story presented to them. Also - I don't think 'the cloud' is oversold. It's definitely the future, and it's going to be the 'new normal' and it's here to stay. The notion that anyone would 'host their own' stuff just doesn't make sense anymore - unless there are specific reasons for it. 'The cloud' is now the 'default choice' for most things, unless you have a need not to use it.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    "explain what business capabilities it aligns to" Well, that is rather the point of buying a large complex business application - it has to align with business processes!!
- NeutronBoy 10y ago
  In an Enterprise, you almost never buy 'a database'. There's a solution/application that you buy, that will have a supported DB backed (usually Oracle or MSSQL). That solution is mostly picked on business capabilities and functionality. The technical component is only one aspect of the requirements, which cover business capabilities/features, technical fit within existing environment, data migration/compatibility, vendor support, vendor credentials, the amount of training required, the amount of business change needed, etc. These projects often cost $10m+, once you factor in the technical implementation and integration, business process changes, training for business staff, training for IT staff, transition costs, etc. So if you want to argue that the business should get the solution that fits their requirements the second best, because the 'best' one has an Oracle backend, you had better come up with a shit-hot reason that can't be solved with 'hire a couple of Oracle engineers'.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    "That solution is mostly picked on business capabilities and functionality." Exactly - cost of support/hosting/licensing the relevant database is a factor but, in my experience, it is a pretty small part of a large ERP or CRM implementation.
- technion 10y ago
  Let me read you a specification I got for a project a while back: Build and implement an Intranet system based on Oracle That was the start, and finish of the spec we got. Question about what sort of information the intranet stores? Here's your answer: As long as it uses Oracle Standing your ground where Oracle is involved usually just means quitting. Not every engineer has that luxury.
  - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
    If that were the extent of the "specification" I got, and I couldn't get any additional information, then ... Yes, I'd quit. Period. End of discussion. I couldn't work at a company that operated that way.
- rwallace 10y ago
  Well yes, engineers do need to learn how to stand their ground - over things like pay and working conditions. But no amount of standing your ground will let you overrule the CTO on a corporate strategic decision, no matter how mistaken. As the saying goes, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

by rosser 10y ago

raverbashing 10y ago

Engineers need to learn how to stand their ground

threeseed 10y ago
That's cute. And it might even work in a startup. But likely not. But in the enterprise world nobody really cares what engineers think. You have Enterprise Architects, Technical Architects, Solution Architects etc. who get paid exorbitant amounts of money, are political animals and can masterfully straddle the line between business and technology. Most of them are ex-engineers so they aren't entirely useless and since they have their own language they will make you look stupid. Can't articulate the transition from a tactical to strategic solution and explain what business capabilities it aligns to ? Well good luck getting that past the central Enterprise Architects who will need to sign off on your choice before it heads to Procurement/Legal. Architects along with IT managers and CIOs are the people whom the famous Oracle Sales machine targets with golf games, overseas trips and fancy dinners. It's never engineers. I spent a few years at Oracle. They are a multi billion dollar company for a reason.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Yes, those issues are important, and I was aware of them For a start, that's why I don't work (at least directly) for the enterprise world. But I've seen companies adopt open source solutions and modernize. I've also seen companies use those "legacy" technologies. They're the ones that usually go bankrupt, unless technology is a minor part of their business. And yes, as much as "corporate architecture" is 90% BS and politics, if you can at least explain why solution A is better than solution B in a way it's understood, then you did your part. And the question remains, who will pick up the phone when an open source DB fails to perform as it should. Does Red Hat provide support in that area?
  - threeseed 10y ago
    Support is the biggest issue with open source. It's why companies like RedHat, DataStax, Hortonworks, Databricks, MongoDB have all done so well. They basically took over their open source projects and provided official vendor support in the Oracle "style". They all offer certifications, training and conferences around the world for you to spend company money on.
- bb101 10y ago
  I can confirm this. Oracle goes out of their way to make senior and upper-mid management feel like rockstars. All expenses paid meetings in attractive overseas destinations, start to finish hand holding on multi-million dollar engagements, regular contact and personal attention. Management swoon and sign the cheques. And why wouldn't they? After all, it's only the company's money, not theirs personally.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    It will be fun if Oracle is investigated relating this practices
    - Helmet 10y ago
      Why? This is basically how the business world operates. There is nothing wrong with a private business wining and dining a potential client to swoon and sell them something.
      - edblarney 10y ago
        "here is nothing wrong with a private business wining and dining a potential client to swoon and sell them something." Yes it's called 'kickbacks' and it can be illegal or considered corruption. If you were a CEO would you want your team buying a product because they were given $5000 tickets to the superbowl?
        aNoob7000 10y ago
        You will be investigating likes of Microsoft, IBM, and even Amazon. As an example, I can't stop the CIO and board at my company from talking about the cloud because of all the consultants and sales guys talking to the C suite. You want to see something really oversold right now look no further than the cloud.
        edblarney 10y ago
        'Wining and dining' is very common, but it's not necessarily considered 'corruption' because a meal is well, just a meal, after all. The occasional tickets etc. are just a 'gift' not ostensibly supposed to interfere with the purchasing decision. Of course they do on some level. But it's a fine line. It's crazy how many CEO's will let purchasing decision makers be taken on these things and junkets, I would just not allow it. But also don't doubt the ability of people to just drink koolaid. There are tons of non-thinkers out there who just 'buy' the story presented to them. Also - I don't think 'the cloud' is oversold. It's definitely the future, and it's going to be the 'new normal' and it's here to stay. The notion that anyone would 'host their own' stuff just doesn't make sense anymore - unless there are specific reasons for it. 'The cloud' is now the 'default choice' for most things, unless you have a need not to use it.
- arethuza 10y ago
  "explain what business capabilities it aligns to" Well, that is rather the point of buying a large complex business application - it has to align with business processes!!
NeutronBoy 10y ago
In an Enterprise, you almost never buy 'a database'. There's a solution/application that you buy, that will have a supported DB backed (usually Oracle or MSSQL). That solution is mostly picked on business capabilities and functionality. The technical component is only one aspect of the requirements, which cover business capabilities/features, technical fit within existing environment, data migration/compatibility, vendor support, vendor credentials, the amount of training required, the amount of business change needed, etc. These projects often cost $10m+, once you factor in the technical implementation and integration, business process changes, training for business staff, training for IT staff, transition costs, etc. So if you want to argue that the business should get the solution that fits their requirements the second best, because the 'best' one has an Oracle backend, you had better come up with a shit-hot reason that can't be solved with 'hire a couple of Oracle engineers'.
- arethuza 10y ago
  "That solution is mostly picked on business capabilities and functionality." Exactly - cost of support/hosting/licensing the relevant database is a factor but, in my experience, it is a pretty small part of a large ERP or CRM implementation.
technion 10y ago
Let me read you a specification I got for a project a while back: Build and implement an Intranet system based on Oracle That was the start, and finish of the spec we got. Question about what sort of information the intranet stores? Here's your answer: As long as it uses Oracle Standing your ground where Oracle is involved usually just means quitting. Not every engineer has that luxury.
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  If that were the extent of the "specification" I got, and I couldn't get any additional information, then ... Yes, I'd quit. Period. End of discussion. I couldn't work at a company that operated that way.
rwallace 10y ago
Well yes, engineers do need to learn how to stand their ground - over things like pay and working conditions. But no amount of standing your ground will let you overrule the CTO on a corporate strategic decision, no matter how mistaken. As the saying goes, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."