6 ms·

Much as I dislike this as a developer, this is a smart business strategy for Oracle. Let's face it: at the companies that use Oracle, the developers aren't th

by j_baker 16y ago

Much as I dislike this as a developer, this is a smart business strategy for Oracle. Let's face it: at the companies that use Oracle, the developers aren't the one making the call as to what database to use. That's the call of much higher-ups. About the only solution I can suggest is to avoid working for such companies, but I'm be preaching to the choir to say that.

jrockway 16y ago
That's true. The higher-ups can say which database to use and hire a bunch of people to set it up. But if the developers ignore them, they have no way of actually determining this. (Which is what's so great about mandates from Higher Up.)
- kscaldef 16y ago
  Relying on a conspiracy of the entire technical staff to keep your job seems like a bad idea to me.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    The market is what lets programmers keep their jobs. There aren't enough of them, so they have to settle for what's out there. Might as well make the best of it.
  - CrLf 16y ago
    Sometimes, that conspiracy is what keeps the business running. Whithout it, there would be no jobs. Not that this is the case everywhere and everytime, but if technical decisions were left solely in the hands of people that lack technical skills, the situation would be even worse that it is now, with all the "enterprise software" floating around and causing trouble directly proportional to their cost.
- euroclydon 16y ago
  I worked at a place that had a huge Oracle RAC license. We ran non-mission-critical data collection apps on it, but the app which dispensed drugs in real-time, all over the world, not only ran Postgres, but 90% of the business logic was in DB functions.
  - sandGorgon 16y ago
    I sometimes think that the lack of books for Postgres is because someone is paying to keep them off the market. Every few days on pgsql.general mailing lists, there is someone asking for a good Postgresql book (the "High Performance MySQL" kind) Less books = one more tick mark for Oracle.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - jrockway 16y ago
      More books = you writing one. If you won't do it, why should anyone else?
      - fauigerzigerk 16y ago
        Because there are people who consider themselves technical writers. Either they do it or someone from the core postgresql team who has the credibility.
  - ora600 16y ago
    I would love to hear why you made this decision.
    - euroclydon 16y ago
      I didn't. It wasn't subversive, like the parent comment. It just worked out that way because of technology acquisitions. Customers wanted to hear their data was "on Oracle." My take is that the overhead of maintaining and using Oracle means that you have to cut resources somewhere else. I'm pretty sure a competent DBA and developers can ensure atomicity and integrity using Postgres (instead of Oracle), and have a lot of time left over to create more features in the application.
      - ora600 16y ago
        Don't get me wrong - Postgres is awesome and I would happily use it for any project. I'm not sure Postgres is easier to manage than Oracle and places any less maintenance overhead, but YMMV. Its just that RAC is a special technology with no equivalent on other DBs. It is usually placed where you need load balancing on the DB level. It normally has very high availability that is a good fit for mission critical DBs. I hate seeing good technology wasted, but you are right that if Postgres is already there and works well, there is no point in moving anywhere.
cageface 16y ago
Maybe. Maybe not. I've had nothing but bad experiences with Oracle in several jobs now and will emphatically advise against it at every opportunity. Postgres may not be a drop-in replacement for every Oracle use case but for those that are I'll recommend it first any day of the week. Oracle in a job description is a big red flag for me.
- gaius 16y ago
  Technically or culturally? Because a properly installed and maintained Oracle is pretty reliable and straightforward to use. If you even can run your application on Postgres then you wasted your money buying Oracle; you aren't using it for what it's for[1]. [1] I am aware that convincing people that they might need to in future is key to Oracle's business model, but that's beside the point.
  - DannoHung 16y ago
    What is it that makes Oracle more suitable for some projects?
    - gaius 16y ago
      Most obviously, if you want to run one of Oracle's layered applications (e.g supply chain management or whatever). Sure you probably could beat it into running on Postgres but why would you? Oracle (the database) is meant to be the integration point for Oracle (everything else). If you aren't running any of Oracle's other products, then it boils down to a pure technical decision - do you need feature X? Is it cheaper to buy it or build it? For example do you use OpenFiler or buy VVM or use ASM that comes with Oracle since you need a database anyway? Or maybe you have exotic spatial data needs. Or you want virtual private database/label security (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/RLS http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/RLS - Oracle has had this for years, the Postgres guys are still talking about it, the MySQL camp don't even know that there is such a thing). Now, I am a long-time Oracle user, and even I say, unless you know and can say specifically why you need Oracle, then you should use Postgres or SAP/DB (or in place of Oracle XE, maybe even SQLite). But if you do need it, then it's Oracle or DB/2, choose your poison.
mhd 16y ago
It's only really smart if you consider the two approaches exclusive to each other. Personally, I don't see a reason why you can't pander to both managers and developers. Yes, you've got some added expenses, but certainly less than most business-centric marketing campaigns or new yachts for Larry. Having said that, I don't think Oracle was totally neglecting that area. They had a few decent free tools available (SQLDeveloper, JDeveloper, trial DB versions) and while their articles didn't come close to the sheer amount IBM offered, there was enough information out there. They could've marketed that better, though. But in that regard, they're certainly not much worse than a lot of other enterprise companies. You can't measure everything by the way Microsoft and Apple are doing it.

by j_baker 16y ago

jrockway 16y ago

That's true. The higher-ups can say which database to use and hire a bunch of people to set it up. But if the developers ignore them, they have no way of actually determining this. (Which is what's so great about mandates from Higher Up.)

kscaldef 16y ago
Relying on a conspiracy of the entire technical staff to keep your job seems like a bad idea to me.
- jrockway 16y ago
  The market is what lets programmers keep their jobs. There aren't enough of them, so they have to settle for what's out there. Might as well make the best of it.
- CrLf 16y ago
  Sometimes, that conspiracy is what keeps the business running. Whithout it, there would be no jobs. Not that this is the case everywhere and everytime, but if technical decisions were left solely in the hands of people that lack technical skills, the situation would be even worse that it is now, with all the "enterprise software" floating around and causing trouble directly proportional to their cost.
euroclydon 16y ago
I worked at a place that had a huge Oracle RAC license. We ran non-mission-critical data collection apps on it, but the app which dispensed drugs in real-time, all over the world, not only ran Postgres, but 90% of the business logic was in DB functions.
- sandGorgon 16y ago
  I sometimes think that the lack of books for Postgres is because someone is paying to keep them off the market. Every few days on pgsql.general mailing lists, there is someone asking for a good Postgresql book (the "High Performance MySQL" kind) Less books = one more tick mark for Oracle.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - jrockway 16y ago
    More books = you writing one. If you won't do it, why should anyone else?
    - fauigerzigerk 16y ago
      Because there are people who consider themselves technical writers. Either they do it or someone from the core postgresql team who has the credibility.
- ora600 16y ago
  I would love to hear why you made this decision.
  - euroclydon 16y ago
    I didn't. It wasn't subversive, like the parent comment. It just worked out that way because of technology acquisitions. Customers wanted to hear their data was "on Oracle." My take is that the overhead of maintaining and using Oracle means that you have to cut resources somewhere else. I'm pretty sure a competent DBA and developers can ensure atomicity and integrity using Postgres (instead of Oracle), and have a lot of time left over to create more features in the application.
    - ora600 16y ago
      Don't get me wrong - Postgres is awesome and I would happily use it for any project. I'm not sure Postgres is easier to manage than Oracle and places any less maintenance overhead, but YMMV. Its just that RAC is a special technology with no equivalent on other DBs. It is usually placed where you need load balancing on the DB level. It normally has very high availability that is a good fit for mission critical DBs. I hate seeing good technology wasted, but you are right that if Postgres is already there and works well, there is no point in moving anywhere.

cageface 16y ago

Maybe. Maybe not. I've had nothing but bad experiences with Oracle in several jobs now and will emphatically advise against it at every opportunity. Postgres may not be a drop-in replacement for every Oracle use case but for those that are I'll recommend it first any day of the week. Oracle in a job description is a big red flag for me.

gaius 16y ago
Technically or culturally? Because a properly installed and maintained Oracle is pretty reliable and straightforward to use. If you even can run your application on Postgres then you wasted your money buying Oracle; you aren't using it for what it's for[1]. [1] I am aware that convincing people that they might need to in future is key to Oracle's business model, but that's beside the point.
- DannoHung 16y ago
  What is it that makes Oracle more suitable for some projects?
  - gaius 16y ago
    Most obviously, if you want to run one of Oracle's layered applications (e.g supply chain management or whatever). Sure you probably could beat it into running on Postgres but why would you? Oracle (the database) is meant to be the integration point for Oracle (everything else). If you aren't running any of Oracle's other products, then it boils down to a pure technical decision - do you need feature X? Is it cheaper to buy it or build it? For example do you use OpenFiler or buy VVM or use ASM that comes with Oracle since you need a database anyway? Or maybe you have exotic spatial data needs. Or you want virtual private database/label security (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/RLS http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/RLS - Oracle has had this for years, the Postgres guys are still talking about it, the MySQL camp don't even know that there is such a thing). Now, I am a long-time Oracle user, and even I say, unless you know and can say specifically why you need Oracle, then you should use Postgres or SAP/DB (or in place of Oracle XE, maybe even SQLite). But if you do need it, then it's Oracle or DB/2, choose your poison.

mhd 16y ago

It's only really smart if you consider the two approaches exclusive to each other. Personally, I don't see a reason why you can't pander to both managers and developers. Yes, you've got some added expenses, but certainly less than most business-centric marketing campaigns or new yachts for Larry. Having said that, I don't think Oracle was totally neglecting that area. They had a few decent free tools available (SQLDeveloper, JDeveloper, trial DB versions) and while their articles didn't come close to the sheer amount IBM offered, there was enough information out there. They could've marketed that better, though. But in that regard, they're certainly not much worse than a lot of other enterprise companies. You can't measure everything by the way Microsoft and Apple are doing it.