On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Roberts, Jon <Jon.Roberts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Roberts, Jon wrote: >> > My top 10 reasons why companies pick Oracle. >> >> Do you mean they actually get these things, or they imagine they do? >> > Huh? Companies buy Oracle all of the time. I think he meant the features, not the db. >> > 2. Security: Patches, >> >> When they get good and ready. There are outstanding security issues >> in Oracle that have been there for years. >> > > I'm not saying Oracle is more or less secure. I think people feel > better about security from a company like Oracle rather than a bunch of > hackers on an email list. It is perceived as more secure by many, > especially large companies. Oracle has had security issues that they've sat on for years in the past. years. Google for more info. I have never seen the "hackers on an email list" who make pgsql do that. You find a security hole, they patch it. >> > encryption, >> >> We have it. >> > PG can't encrypt code. PG can compile to C. I'm willing to bet any halfway decent hacker could get the plsql code out of an encrypted oracle procedure. >> Are you saying that the fact that the source isn't legally available >> to the population at large is a feature? If you are, it's an argument >> for security by obscurity, a system with a lot of deep known flaws. >> > No, I'm saying that if I create a function in PG, ANYONE with access to > the database can see my code. That is not secure. It is a security > hole for the database. It is NOT a security hole. Seeing the code and running the code are two entirely different things. >> > 3. Software indemnification (which is open source's biggest >> > problem) >> >> Are you kidding?!? Read the EULA for Oracle or any other proprietary >> software package and then read the BSD license. They both indemnify >> about the same thing, i.e. nothing. If you have any examples in case >> law that show otherwise, they'd be a great thing to bring forth. > > The contracts you sign when you buy Oracle indemnify you from lawsuits. > For instance, Oracle bundles Apache with various products. If someone > sues a company for using Oracle HTTP Server because it uses Apache and > Apache was allegedly illegally contributed to by a rogue employee, then > Oracle protects their customers. > > After SCO went after companies using Linux, it is a concern of large > companies and worth the extra cost of paying Oracle for Apache rather > than using Apache all by itself. Any PHB who was scared of SCO's arm waving legal arguments deserves to be run out of town on a rail. If SCO is the sum total of your argument for software indemnifictation, you really don't have an argument, except in the most abstract sense, that somewhere some PHB is worried about a non-issue. >> > 4. Scalability of shared disk (Oracle RAC) >> >> RAC doesn't scale outside Oracle's sales literature, as far as I've >> seen. > > I have. Sadly, you can't publish any numbers to prove it. :) Seriously, very few instances is RAC any faster than just throwing more hardware in a single image at the problem. Given the cost of the sysadmins, licenses, crazy expensive SAN hardware, and extra machinery, you're better off just buying a monstrously huge SUN with 100 disk RAID-10 array under it. >> > 6. Best, oldest, and most proven concurrency model for any >> > commercial database product >> >> It's none of those things. >> > Which commercial database is better? MS SQL Server, Sybase, DB2, what? Every db has advantages and disadvantages in it's concurrency handling ability. I'm willing to bet that to this TPF will outperform oracle. But I don't want to run either of those. OTOH, I have set up benchmarks that ran for weeks to burn in pgsql on decent sized machines that hadd 1,000 concurrent accesses, and this slowed queries down to 1 to 5 seconds instead of the usual sub millisecond performance. I'd like to say I've tested or seen others test Oracle like this and it ran well, but whether or not I have, I am forbidden to tell you by Oracle's licensing scheme. >> > 7. Runs great on various platforms not just Linux or just Windows >> >> Is this different from some other RDBMS(s) out there, and if so, which >> one(s)? The only "just Windows" RDBMS I've ever heard of is MS SQL >> Server, and I know of no "just Linux" ones. >> > PG doesn't scale well on Windows. DB2 seems to work best on a > mainframe. Sybase works best on Unix. MS SQL Server only runs on > Windows. Oh no! That means we can only run pgsql on various flavours of unix with good performance. That only gives us Linux, BSD(s), Solaris, AIX, HPUX and a few others. Sure, Oracle runs fast on those too, but don't try to tell me oracle runs as fast and scales as well on Windows. That I know isn't true, I've seen the performance myself a few times. >> > 9. Deep, deep discounts. I've never seen any company pay list >> > price for Oracle products. It has always been at least 50% off if >> > not more. >> >> 50% off a price that's bloated by 1000% or more isn't much of a >> muchness. >> > It is only the perception of a good deal. So what? Really? Do you light your cigars with 100 dollar bills or something? I can't just throw $250k at a problem at work without justification. The fact that 250k is half the retail price of $500k doesn't really fly with my boss, as much as he loves a deal. >> > 10. Sales employees that will do anything to retain or grow your >> > business. >> >> That's just great if you prefer hookers and blow to a working RDBMS. >> > LOL. That is pretty funny. I'm talking about doing free work like a > proof of concepts, demonstrations of products, etc. I've even seen > technical sales guys help out onsite for free for performance tuning an > application. Well, I never got that kind of treatment at my last company. Oracle was quite willing to renegotiate pricing (i.e. 500k to 250k woohoo!) but never once stepped foot in our office, and we were having massive problems getting RAC working. >> > The initial price of the product factors into the equation for big >> > companies but when you look at all the value add of Oracle, it is >> > very tempting. >> >> Their sales and marketing people have certainly done an excellent job >> creating the perceptions above, among others, and spreading them >> around the industry. > > Perception = sales. Yes. If the person doing the buying is easily entertained by small shiny objects, yes, that's true.
