[News] Large American Enterprise to Dump Oracle in MySQL's Favour - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Large American Enterprise to Dump Oracle in MySQL's Favour - Linux ; "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message news:2608219.lBthEdcHCN@schestowitz.com... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Interesting comment spotted on Jonathan Schwartz' blog: > > ,----[ Quote ] > | [...] I work for a major Fortune company, and we're ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: [News] Large American Enterprise to Dump Oracle in MySQL's Favour

  1. Re: [News] Large American Enterprise to Dump Oracle in MS SQL-Server's Favour


    "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    news:2608219.lBthEdcHCN@schestowitz.com...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > Interesting comment spotted on Jonathan Schwartz' blog:
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | [...] I work for a major Fortune company, and we're in the process of
    > putting
    > | Oracle on a "sunset" list of restricted vendors. No new applications are
    > | allowed on Oracle, the only approved vendors are Sun/MySQL and
    > Microsoft/SQL
    > | Server. So I don't know how Sun did that, but if their objective was to
    > | provide competition for Oracle, it appears to have worked with my
    > | management...
    > `----
    >
    > http://arjen-lentz.livejournal.com/125253.html




    " ....the only approved vendors are Sun/MySQL and Microsoft/SQL Server."




    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  2. [News] Large American Enterprise to Dump Oracle in MySQL's Favour

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Interesting comment spotted on Jonathan Schwartz' blog:

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | [...] I work for a major Fortune company, and we're in the process of putting
    | Oracle on a "sunset" list of restricted vendors. No new applications are
    | allowed on Oracle, the only approved vendors are Sun/MySQL and Microsoft/SQL
    | Server. So I don't know how Sun did that, but if their objective was to
    | provide competition for Oracle, it appears to have worked with my
    | management...
    `----

    http://arjen-lentz.livejournal.com/125253.html


    Recent:

    Oracle users go ga-ga for open source, including MySQL

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | It's great to be king (aka "Oracle"), but apparently the peasants are
    | secretly in revolt. According to a survey of the Independent Oracle Users
    | Group (IOUG) [PDF], open source adoption is rampant within the rank-and-file
    | of Oracle users...including widespread adoption of MySQL. *
    `----

    http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9...bj=TheOpenRoad
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkiE7P4ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5QDQCfRt/+OcndwzbL2DTrBma4y52W
    oaMAn0ssJDamGuFtZjfhNoFkqidb4VZZ
    =lBKn
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  3. Re: [News] Large American Enterprise to Dump Oracle in MS SQL-Server's Favour

    On 2008-07-21, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    > "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    > news:2608219.lBthEdcHCN@schestowitz.com...
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> Interesting comment spotted on Jonathan Schwartz' blog:
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | [...] I work for a major Fortune company, and we're in the process of
    >> putting
    >> | Oracle on a "sunset" list of restricted vendors. No new applications are
    >> | allowed on Oracle, the only approved vendors are Sun/MySQL and
    >> Microsoft/SQL
    >> | Server. So I don't know how Sun did that, but if their objective was to
    >> | provide competition for Oracle, it appears to have worked with my
    >> | management...
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://arjen-lentz.livejournal.com/125253.html

    >
    >
    >
    > " ....the only approved vendors are Sun/MySQL and Microsoft/SQL Server."


    So they've got to choose between a drunkard and a midget.

    It really makes you wonder who's palms got greased on that deal.

    --
    Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
    better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
    want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
    rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  4. Re: [News] Large American Enterprise to Dump Oracle in MS SQL-Server's Favour


    "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    news:slrng89tqd.qk2.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    > On 2008-07-21, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >> "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    >> news:2608219.lBthEdcHCN@schestowitz.com...
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> Interesting comment spotted on Jonathan Schwartz' blog:
    >>>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>> | [...] I work for a major Fortune company, and we're in the process of
    >>> putting
    >>> | Oracle on a "sunset" list of restricted vendors. No new applications
    >>> are
    >>> | allowed on Oracle, the only approved vendors are Sun/MySQL and
    >>> Microsoft/SQL
    >>> | Server. So I don't know how Sun did that, but if their objective was
    >>> to
    >>> | provide competition for Oracle, it appears to have worked with my
    >>> | management...
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> http://arjen-lentz.livejournal.com/125253.html

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> " ....the only approved vendors are Sun/MySQL and Microsoft/SQL Server."

    >
    > So they've got to choose between a drunkard and a midget.
    >
    > It really makes you wonder who's palms got greased on that deal.


    Probably nobody's. For starters we know nothing about what this (perhaps
    real) major Fortune company is. (Interesting that it's not a Fortune-100 or
    Fortune-500 company but a "major Fortune "company).

    But anyway, most companies especially large ones have a "preferred vendors"
    list. In IT for example the last thing they want is database products from
    28 different vendords. The fewer databases they have to support the lower
    their IT costs will be. Perhaps they had a falling-out with Oracle over
    changes in how licensing costs are computed (like we did about 4 years ago)
    and decided not to make any new purchases from them.

    It doesn't mean that anything corrupt happened or that any shady deals were
    made. Companies deal or don't deal with other companies for a variety of
    reasons.


    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  5. Re: [News] Large American Enterprise to Dump Oracle in MS SQL-Server's Favour

    On 2008-07-21, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    > "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    > news:slrng89tqd.qk2.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >> On 2008-07-21, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    >>> news:2608219.lBthEdcHCN@schestowitz.com...
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> Interesting comment spotted on Jonathan Schwartz' blog:
    >>>>
    >>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>> | [...] I work for a major Fortune company, and we're in the process of
    >>>> putting
    >>>> | Oracle on a "sunset" list of restricted vendors. No new applications
    >>>> are
    >>>> | allowed on Oracle, the only approved vendors are Sun/MySQL and
    >>>> Microsoft/SQL
    >>>> | Server. So I don't know how Sun did that, but if their objective was
    >>>> to
    >>>> | provide competition for Oracle, it appears to have worked with my
    >>>> | management...
    >>>> `----
    >>>>
    >>>> http://arjen-lentz.livejournal.com/125253.html
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> " ....the only approved vendors are Sun/MySQL and Microsoft/SQL Server."

    >>
    >> So they've got to choose between a drunkard and a midget.
    >>
    >> It really makes you wonder who's palms got greased on that deal.

    >
    > Probably nobody's. For starters we know nothing about what this (perhaps
    > real) major Fortune company is. (Interesting that it's not a Fortune-100 or
    > Fortune-500 company but a "major Fortune "company).


    If they have enough of anything to get on any Fortune list then
    they most certainly have databases that are too important to trust
    to what mysql has for crash/disaster recovery and applications
    that simply won't scale under mssql.

    OTOH this company might be on no Fortune list of any sort and this
    person might have no real clue what sort of companies get on thos
    lists or whether or not their company qualifies.

    >
    > But anyway, most companies especially large ones have a "preferred vendors"
    > list. In IT for example the last thing they want is database products from
    > 28 different vendords. The fewer databases they have to support the lower
    > their IT costs will be. Perhaps they had a falling-out with Oracle over
    > changes in how licensing costs are computed (like we did about 4 years ago)
    > and decided not to make any new purchases from them.
    >
    > It doesn't mean that anything corrupt happened or that any shady deals were


    Sure it does.

    There are some jobs that a big company will need to do that neither
    of those products can handle. Someone was paid or someone is throwing a
    temper tantrum. Either way they are allowing their personal interests
    jeopardize the company.

    > made. Companies deal or don't deal with other companies for a variety of
    > reasons.


    Sure. However, the universe is not limited to Sun, Microsoft and Oracle.

    >
    >
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **



    --
    Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
    |||
    / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

+ Reply to Thread