3 ms·

I work at Oracle's Java Platform Group, where most of the managers and senior engineers came over from Sun. They all tell me that, despite the normal big-corp i

by pron 4y ago

I work at Oracle's Java Platform Group, where most of the managers and senior engineers came over from Sun. They all tell me that, despite the normal big-corp issues, work under Oracle's control is better than it was under Sun, where management was more chaotic, strategy unclear, and resources shifted erratically from one project to another, often wasted on unreasonable goals with bad prospects. Not only that, but the commitment to open-source has, at least so far, been stronger (although I can't speak for other parts of the company that I know little about). And because the work has yielded more success, it has resulted in more resources that are, in turn, invested more wisely in projects with better prospects. Again, I can't speak for other parts of the company, and maybe Java's successful integration into Oracle has been a fluke (given Java's immense success and that it's at the cutting edge of compilation and runtime technology; I do know that the experience of Sun engineers in other areas has not been anything like that of the Java folks), but the Sun people in JPG have been very pleased with how it's been going overall. The work culture in the JPG and the mix of talent and personality, also compare very favourably to Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Netflix (based on reports of friends or hires that came from those companies), and at least on three occasions engineers that left for some of these companies have come back.

zeruch 4y ago
"They all tell me that, despite the normal big-corp issues, work under Oracle's control is better than it was under Sun, where management was more chaotic, strategy unclear, and resources shifted erratically from one project to another, often wasted on unreasonable goals with bad prospects." What you describe is the post-McNealy era (although I'd argue the last few years of McNealy started to decline as well). Zander was utterly lacking in dynamism and largely just a numbers guy, and Jonathan Schwartz was a total bungler with delusions of "thought leadership". SUN after 2001 was a very very different animal from prior.
zeruch 4y ago
"Again, I can't speak for other parts of the company, and maybe Java's successful integration into Oracle has been a fluke" They only cared about Java, and to a lesser extent controlling MySQL (the latter being one effectively stupid gambit, but one that's held on some tertiary value). The HW business has been slowly circling the bowl, they borked the OpenOffice, Jenkins and other projects, and their OS side is AWOL. I know a few folks that went to Oracle to "hide" in the jungle, while they figure out what they actually want to do next. I've had Oracle recruiters call me before over the years, and I just have a long running disdain for their licensing/business approach, to the point that I have either prevented or ripped out every attempt for them in places I've been at.
LeFantome 4y ago
Very interesting. Nice to get some insider info. Java came pretty near the end for Sun during a massive time of upheaval for their traditional business model, a massive economic downturn, and a historic change in leadership. Those could also be factors. It would be interesting to get the same take of before and after from somebody working on SPARC or Solaris.
sangnoir 4y ago
It makes sense that those who've stayed on under Oracle have a favorable opinion of how Oracle does things: one might say they are self-selected for it.
- jstimpfle 4y ago
  Survivorship Bias.
- pron 4y ago
  I guess, except that the entire top technical leadership has remained unchanged for thirteen years now -- something Sun wasn't able to maintain for Java -- and they couldn't have known how things would turn out back then. Also, it's not about "how Oracle does things" but "how Oracle runs Java", which is probably quite different from how Oracle does other things. Given the outcome, it's hard to argue that Sun was a better steward to Java.
- agumonkey 4y ago
  Good point but still interesting considering Oracle's reputation. One could argue that even those still at Oracle would say "we don't like it but we didn't find something else... we're used to it".
- rst 4y ago
  In particular, it excludes very senior people who left almost immediately after the takeover, due to differences with Oracle management -- most notably James Gosling. https://www.eweek.com/development/java-creator-james-gosling-why-i-quit-oracle/ https://www.eweek.com/development/java-creator-james-gosling...
severino 4y ago
Wait a minute, an opinion of somebody working at Oracle not bashing Oracle? You deserve downvotes, the only interesting opinions about working at Oracle are those from people who never worked at Oracle! :)

by pron 4y ago

zeruch 4y ago

"They all tell me that, despite the normal big-corp issues, work under Oracle's control is better than it was under Sun, where management was more chaotic, strategy unclear, and resources shifted erratically from one project to another, often wasted on unreasonable goals with bad prospects." What you describe is the post-McNealy era (although I'd argue the last few years of McNealy started to decline as well). Zander was utterly lacking in dynamism and largely just a numbers guy, and Jonathan Schwartz was a total bungler with delusions of "thought leadership". SUN after 2001 was a very very different animal from prior.

zeruch 4y ago

"Again, I can't speak for other parts of the company, and maybe Java's successful integration into Oracle has been a fluke" They only cared about Java, and to a lesser extent controlling MySQL (the latter being one effectively stupid gambit, but one that's held on some tertiary value). The HW business has been slowly circling the bowl, they borked the OpenOffice, Jenkins and other projects, and their OS side is AWOL. I know a few folks that went to Oracle to "hide" in the jungle, while they figure out what they actually want to do next. I've had Oracle recruiters call me before over the years, and I just have a long running disdain for their licensing/business approach, to the point that I have either prevented or ripped out every attempt for them in places I've been at.

LeFantome 4y ago

Very interesting. Nice to get some insider info. Java came pretty near the end for Sun during a massive time of upheaval for their traditional business model, a massive economic downturn, and a historic change in leadership. Those could also be factors. It would be interesting to get the same take of before and after from somebody working on SPARC or Solaris.

sangnoir 4y ago

It makes sense that those who've stayed on under Oracle have a favorable opinion of how Oracle does things: one might say they are self-selected for it.

jstimpfle 4y ago
Survivorship Bias.
pron 4y ago
I guess, except that the entire top technical leadership has remained unchanged for thirteen years now -- something Sun wasn't able to maintain for Java -- and they couldn't have known how things would turn out back then. Also, it's not about "how Oracle does things" but "how Oracle runs Java", which is probably quite different from how Oracle does other things. Given the outcome, it's hard to argue that Sun was a better steward to Java.
agumonkey 4y ago
Good point but still interesting considering Oracle's reputation. One could argue that even those still at Oracle would say "we don't like it but we didn't find something else... we're used to it".
rst 4y ago
In particular, it excludes very senior people who left almost immediately after the takeover, due to differences with Oracle management -- most notably James Gosling. https://www.eweek.com/development/java-creator-james-gosling-why-i-quit-oracle/ https://www.eweek.com/development/java-creator-james-gosling...

severino 4y ago

Wait a minute, an opinion of somebody working at Oracle not bashing Oracle? You deserve downvotes, the only interesting opinions about working at Oracle are those from people who never worked at Oracle! :)