Oracle vs Amazon

Thor

Thor

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
44,413
Reaction score
7,522
Location
Bellville
I like him

[video=youtube_share;2K9lEcWwtvg]https://youtu.be/2K9lEcWwtvg[/video]

Oracle makes amazon look very incompetent.
 
Oracle sucks big time, in my humble opinion... I hate them with a passion. They are probably one of the most deceptive companies on this planet.

Unfortunately, I still use VirtualBox, but they don't deserve credit for that at all. As for MySQL and OpenOffice... I use MariaDB and LibreOffice. I hate what they did with Sun and I hate that they are trying to extort money from Google for their use of Andriod (Java API). Well, I suppose that is how "big business" works.

I wonder if their pricing structure is still as devious as it was a few years ago? Probably, but who cares?
 
Last edited:
adrianx said:
Oracle sucks big time, in my humble opinion... I hate them with a passion. They are probably one of the most deceptive companies on this planet.

Unfortunately, I still use VirtualBox, but they don't deserve credit for it at all. As for MySQL... I use MariaDB.

I wonder if their pricing structure is still as devious as it was a few years ago? Probably, but who cares?
Click to expand...
Video paints the complete opposite.
 
Emmm, the X1 is a memory instance. I do not understand why one would run an OLTP database on it. I3's (and I2's) are for OLTP databases.

Also, when quoting IOPS at 17:50 in the video, should maybe rather compare with the I3's 3.3M IOPS, rather than EBS IOPS, for the same reasons: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/wh...eration-storage-optimized-high-i-o-instances/

And at 28:50, seems pretty selective about the DB's picked. What about SQLServer, PostgreSQL, DB2 etc.? Also, Aurora is effectively managed MySQL/PostgreSQL. And Redshift is based on PostgreSQL and can be accessed using PostgreSQL drivers.

I only watched some snippets, so cannot comment of the full video.
 
gkm said:
Emmm, the X1 is a memory instance. I do not understand why one would run an OLTP database on it. I3's (and I2's) are for OLTP databases.

Also, when quoting IOPS at 17:50 in the video, should maybe rather compare with the I3's 3.3M IOPS, rather than EBS IOPS, for the same reasons: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/wh...eration-storage-optimized-high-i-o-instances/

And at 28:50, seems pretty selective about the DB's picked. What about SQLServer, PostgreSQL, DB2 etc.? Also, Aurora is effectively managed MySQL/PostgreSQL. And Redshift is based on PostgreSQL and can be accessed using PostgreSQL drivers.

I only watched some snippets, so cannot comment of the full video.
Click to expand...

tl;dr Oracle is better than everything else, because Larry says so. Thanks i'll stick to postgres and AWS.
 
There is no difference between Oracle, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung etc.

These CEO's will always say their co is the best. That's what they are paid for. its called marketing. That people get so hyped up about it says more about them(fanboys :) ) than it does about these companies.
 
zippy said:
There is no difference between Oracle, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung etc.

These CEO's will always say their co is the best. That's what they are paid for. its called marketing. That people get so hyped up about it says more about them(fanboys :) ) than it does about these companies.
Click to expand...
You're wrong
 
Thor187 said:
Video paints the complete opposite.
Click to expand...

When last did a CEO say "Hey, our product is ****, please don't use it ... ever."

Oracle is a bloated hunk of crap.
It used to be fast back in the late '90's when they did their "We are the filesystem" thing (It's been so long I've forgotten what it is called), but their pricing and market was for enterprise only.

Later, after huge success by mysql and ****ing up SUN, they started wisening up and released a 'dev' friendly version limited to 1 cpu or something like that. It was still bloated and full of ****.

While Oracle had more functionality than MySQL, MySQL was a lot faster. Postgres was (in my opinion) the best for all 3.


Thor187 said:
You're wrong.
Click to expand...

No! You're wrong!
 
Sheeesh seems oracle is a touchy subject.

Go put your alternative views in the comments of Larry's video
 
Thor187 said:
Sheeesh seems oracle is a touchy subject.

Go put your alternative views in the comments of Larry's video
Click to expand...

Without relying on old Larry and from your experience with Oracle DB, what is your opinion?
 
rward said:
When last did a CEO say "Hey, our product is ****, please don't use it ... ever."

Oracle is a bloated hunk of crap.
It used to be fast back in the late '90's when they did their "We are the filesystem" thing (It's been so long I've forgotten what it is called), but their pricing and market was for enterprise only.

Later, after huge success by mysql and ****ing up SUN, they started wisening up and released a 'dev' friendly version limited to 1 cpu or something like that. It was still bloated and full of ****.

While Oracle had more functionality than MySQL, MySQL was a lot faster. Postgres was (in my opinion) the best for all 3.




No! You're wrong!
Click to expand...

Oracle is a good db, but is overkill for many applications. I have worked with Oracle for over15 years.

MySQL, Postgres, SQL Server are good products too.

If you have the right skills you make anyone of them work for you, in the appropriate setup. The trick is knowing which is best for the application. I think MySQL and Postgres will find more suitable use cases than Oracle or SQL Server. SQL Server pretty much limits itself in large production environment to a single OS.

If you have a large Unix or Linux setup then Oracle might be more of an advantage, otherwise its difficult to justify the costs of Oracle over MySQL or Postrges in an average size organisation.

Company I currently work at use Oracle for their main production systems and then use SQL Server for other systems. This is not uncommon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X