9 ms·

Oracle Surprised by the Present

106 points by MarlonPro 14y ago

jarito 14y ago
This is surprisingly strong language for a couple of supposedly mature companies. I think Microsoft would have been better off with a light-hearted response that would have highlighted Oracle's reaction of being over the top and unprofessional. As it is, it just seems like two children throwing sand at each other.
- jspaur 14y ago
  As a former 'softie, I view it as a 'rally the troops' tone. Us against them with an undcurrent of 'they're scared'. Definitely a different tone than what MSFT normally has, but they're confident, and in a world of 7 figure license deals, it's motivation and tone setting for re-selling partners and field staff.
crypto5 14y ago
What kind of technology is behind Present? In my understanding it's easy to place all data to DB/FS buffers with any DB engine and get superfast operations.
- wmf 14y ago
  If the data is guaranteed to be in memory you can use different data structures that are even more efficient — sometimes 10x more efficient. Ask the TimesTen, SolidDB, or VoltDB folks.
sciurus 14y ago
Don't miss the real gem here - Ksvin Closson's investigation into what "in-memory database" versus "database in-memory" means. https://kevinclosson.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/oracle-exadata-x3-database-in-memory-machine-timely-thoughtful-thoughts-for-the-thinking-technologist-part-i/ https://kevinclosson.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/oracle-exadata...
purephase 14y ago
Odd tone to the blog post. That being said, I'm always a bit surprised that SQL Server doesn't get the recognition that (IMO) it deserves. It is a pretty solid product. I was in a position to use it for years and saw it mature such that it eventually replaced legacy DB2/Adabas environments. It performed admirably and for a fraction of the price. If the powers that be hadn't decided Oracle at all costs (and literally at all costs) against my counsel, they would have saved a lot of $$ and I might still be working there.
- egwor 14y ago
  the problem is that you have to install hotfixes and windows patches every weekend to keep the thing running.
  - mey 14y ago
    Keep it running no, keep it secure yes. That is true of any production system, regardless of vendor, or should be. Your system/business setups simply reflect this, either through clustering or planned outages. Not sure why I'm providing a rational opinion to a snarky jab at Mircosoft, but imo, they have made fantastic progress on the security front over the past decade.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      Because admining Windows still feels like an enormous nuisance compared to admining a Linux box? I've heard Server 2012 adds more capabilities that would make it administerable more like a Linux sysadmin would expect. Sorry if I offended the point-and-click "sysadmins".
    - T-Winsnes 14y ago
      I find that updating a Windows server often requires a reboot, while other systems can usually get away with restarting the service that is being patched.
  - purephase 14y ago
    Once a month actually, and only if the patches were applicable. It really is not as bad in the MS world as you think. They made great strides in both stability and security over the past 8-9 years in the server OS area. And, I say this as someone who has literally nothing to do with them on a daily basis anymore.
chris_wot 14y ago
It is crazy how many add-ons you need to buy from Oracle. I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft, but they score a pretty telling point on this issue.
MattRogish 14y ago
Although I'm not a huge fan of Windows, Exchange, and the like, I am a huge supporter (although not current a user - was a SQL Server DBA for a few years) of SQL Server. It is probably Microsoft's finest engineering product. Not only is it a super reliable and scalable system T-SQL is actually a user-friendly SQL dialect, and SQL Server Enterprise Manager (or whatever it's called today) is very user-friendly, too. Although I'm a true-blue PostgreSQL believer, I give major props to the SQL Server team. In comparison, Oracle is a disaster (I was reluctant/forced Oracle 8i/9i DBA, too).
- ams6110 14y ago
  The folks at Sybase appreciate your complements.
  - MattRogish 14y ago
    I actually was a Sybase ASE DBA for quite some time, too (spent a lot of time in the DBA trenches - Sybase ASE is my favorite SQL DBMS) and it's my understanding that SQL Server around the 2000/2005 mark was completely rewritten. Although the origins of T-SQL are Sybase, the rest of the product isn't (some of the philosophy and core architecture still is a carry-over from ASE).
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- juiceandjuice 14y ago
  Why would you not like exchange? Do you like to wait a few before you get your emails or something?
shabble 14y ago
Seems like the Oracle rebuttal published in Forbes is 404ing (Taken down, or just moved?), but appears to be in google cache still: page 1: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Foracle%2F2012%2F11%2F14%2Foracle-calls-out-microsoft-over-vaporware-fantasy%2F https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp... page 2: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Foracle%2F2012%2F11%2F14%2Foracle-calls-out-microsoft-over-vaporware-fantasy%2F2%2F https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp... I have to say, the tone of both articles seems strangely...petty, for such huge enterprise organisations. Odd.
jacques_chester 14y ago
Microsoft is playing its usual strategy here: start with a "toy" and slowly ascend the features/quality ladder with each release; all the while undercutting the competition on price. That said, pretty much every enterprise database vendor will soak you for every cent you have. Whenever folk tell me that "relational doesn't scale", I explain that it's been scaled up and out for decades. Don't believe me? Ring any Fortune 500 and ask. ... and then ask how much it's costing them. Be prepared for sticker shock.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  SQL Server stopped being a "toy" a long time ago. If it ever was.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    True, but I don't set the "impressions" that old hands have of new entrants to a market.
wrath 14y ago
It's interesting that when companies like Microsoft are politically correct, we get blast because of it. The on the flip side when they seem pretty aggressive we blast them because of it also. Personally I like seeing facts not just words. If you're going to be aggressive about your product, fine by me, but.... where's the proof? Where are the un-bias comparison graphs? What use case are you using to prove your point? Without data they all come off looking like two politicians. All this said, I love SQL Server but never used it at a super large scale though. What I prefer most about it are it's tools which seem to be much more user friendly then Oracles. I'm no DBA though.
hayksaakian 14y ago
This kind of BS is why I jumped off the SQL ship as soon as I could. I use mongo primarily now, and postgres when SQL is necessary.
malkia 14y ago
I think I was the only one that read it as "Oracal Surprised by the President" (?!?!?!)
sunjain 14y ago
In the long run what is going to hurt SQL server is the fact that it is on Windows only. And if you look at the technology trends for databases - big/midsize IT shops are gravitating towards integrated solutions(Exadata e.g) where Microsoft still relies on third party for hardware. Small shops/startups are gravitating towards commodity hardware(primarily linux based), where trend is more towards MySQL/Postgre/NoSQL, where Microsoft is lacking. And then the cloud (where Microsoft does have an early presence, but then Amazon has been there long before and Oracle is there in too)....In that context this In-Memory database technology tussle is playing out, which was clearly ignited by SAPs Hana (even though oracle had times-ten long before SAP came out with Hana). So looking at future market direction, things are not looking very good for SQL server, even though it is probably one of the best products to come out of Microsoft and currently is doing great.

106 points by MarlonPro 14y ago

This is surprisingly strong language for a couple of supposedly mature companies. I think Microsoft would have been better off with a light-hearted response that would have highlighted Oracle's reaction of being over the top and unprofessional. As it is, it just seems like two children throwing sand at each other.

jspaur 14y ago
As a former 'softie, I view it as a 'rally the troops' tone. Us against them with an undcurrent of 'they're scared'. Definitely a different tone than what MSFT normally has, but they're confident, and in a world of 7 figure license deals, it's motivation and tone setting for re-selling partners and field staff.

crypto5 14y ago

What kind of technology is behind Present? In my understanding it's easy to place all data to DB/FS buffers with any DB engine and get superfast operations.

wmf 14y ago
If the data is guaranteed to be in memory you can use different data structures that are even more efficient — sometimes 10x more efficient. Ask the TimesTen, SolidDB, or VoltDB folks.

sciurus 14y ago

Don't miss the real gem here - Ksvin Closson's investigation into what "in-memory database" versus "database in-memory" means. https://kevinclosson.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/oracle-exadata-x3-database-in-memory-machine-timely-thoughtful-thoughts-for-the-thinking-technologist-part-i/ https://kevinclosson.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/oracle-exadata...

purephase 14y ago

Odd tone to the blog post. That being said, I'm always a bit surprised that SQL Server doesn't get the recognition that (IMO) it deserves. It is a pretty solid product. I was in a position to use it for years and saw it mature such that it eventually replaced legacy DB2/Adabas environments. It performed admirably and for a fraction of the price. If the powers that be hadn't decided Oracle at all costs (and literally at all costs) against my counsel, they would have saved a lot of $$ and I might still be working there.

egwor 14y ago
the problem is that you have to install hotfixes and windows patches every weekend to keep the thing running.
- mey 14y ago
  Keep it running no, keep it secure yes. That is true of any production system, regardless of vendor, or should be. Your system/business setups simply reflect this, either through clustering or planned outages. Not sure why I'm providing a rational opinion to a snarky jab at Mircosoft, but imo, they have made fantastic progress on the security front over the past decade.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Because admining Windows still feels like an enormous nuisance compared to admining a Linux box? I've heard Server 2012 adds more capabilities that would make it administerable more like a Linux sysadmin would expect. Sorry if I offended the point-and-click "sysadmins".
  - T-Winsnes 14y ago
    I find that updating a Windows server often requires a reboot, while other systems can usually get away with restarting the service that is being patched.
- purephase 14y ago
  Once a month actually, and only if the patches were applicable. It really is not as bad in the MS world as you think. They made great strides in both stability and security over the past 8-9 years in the server OS area. And, I say this as someone who has literally nothing to do with them on a daily basis anymore.

chris_wot 14y ago

It is crazy how many add-ons you need to buy from Oracle. I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft, but they score a pretty telling point on this issue.

MattRogish 14y ago

Although I'm not a huge fan of Windows, Exchange, and the like, I am a huge supporter (although not current a user - was a SQL Server DBA for a few years) of SQL Server. It is probably Microsoft's finest engineering product. Not only is it a super reliable and scalable system T-SQL is actually a user-friendly SQL dialect, and SQL Server Enterprise Manager (or whatever it's called today) is very user-friendly, too. Although I'm a true-blue PostgreSQL believer, I give major props to the SQL Server team. In comparison, Oracle is a disaster (I was reluctant/forced Oracle 8i/9i DBA, too).

ams6110 14y ago
The folks at Sybase appreciate your complements.
- MattRogish 14y ago
  I actually was a Sybase ASE DBA for quite some time, too (spent a lot of time in the DBA trenches - Sybase ASE is my favorite SQL DBMS) and it's my understanding that SQL Server around the 2000/2005 mark was completely rewritten. Although the origins of T-SQL are Sybase, the rest of the product isn't (some of the philosophy and core architecture still is a carry-over from ASE).
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
juiceandjuice 14y ago
Why would you not like exchange? Do you like to wait a few before you get your emails or something?

shabble 14y ago

Seems like the Oracle rebuttal published in Forbes is 404ing (Taken down, or just moved?), but appears to be in google cache still: page 1: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Foracle%2F2012%2F11%2F14%2Foracle-calls-out-microsoft-over-vaporware-fantasy%2F https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp... page 2: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Foracle%2F2012%2F11%2F14%2Foracle-calls-out-microsoft-over-vaporware-fantasy%2F2%2F https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp... I have to say, the tone of both articles seems strangely...petty, for such huge enterprise organisations. Odd.

jacques_chester 14y ago

Microsoft is playing its usual strategy here: start with a "toy" and slowly ascend the features/quality ladder with each release; all the while undercutting the competition on price. That said, pretty much every enterprise database vendor will soak you for every cent you have. Whenever folk tell me that "relational doesn't scale", I explain that it's been scaled up and out for decades. Don't believe me? Ring any Fortune 500 and ask. ... and then ask how much it's costing them. Be prepared for sticker shock.

SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
SQL Server stopped being a "toy" a long time ago. If it ever was.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  True, but I don't set the "impressions" that old hands have of new entrants to a market.

wrath 14y ago

It's interesting that when companies like Microsoft are politically correct, we get blast because of it. The on the flip side when they seem pretty aggressive we blast them because of it also. Personally I like seeing facts not just words. If you're going to be aggressive about your product, fine by me, but.... where's the proof? Where are the un-bias comparison graphs? What use case are you using to prove your point? Without data they all come off looking like two politicians. All this said, I love SQL Server but never used it at a super large scale though. What I prefer most about it are it's tools which seem to be much more user friendly then Oracles. I'm no DBA though.

hayksaakian 14y ago

This kind of BS is why I jumped off the SQL ship as soon as I could. I use mongo primarily now, and postgres when SQL is necessary.

malkia 14y ago

I think I was the only one that read it as "Oracal Surprised by the President" (?!?!?!)

sunjain 14y ago

In the long run what is going to hurt SQL server is the fact that it is on Windows only. And if you look at the technology trends for databases - big/midsize IT shops are gravitating towards integrated solutions(Exadata e.g) where Microsoft still relies on third party for hardware. Small shops/startups are gravitating towards commodity hardware(primarily linux based), where trend is more towards MySQL/Postgre/NoSQL, where Microsoft is lacking. And then the cloud (where Microsoft does have an early presence, but then Amazon has been there long before and Oracle is there in too)....In that context this In-Memory database technology tussle is playing out, which was clearly ignited by SAPs Hana (even though oracle had times-ten long before SAP came out with Hana). So looking at future market direction, things are not looking very good for SQL server, even though it is probably one of the best products to come out of Microsoft and currently is doing great.