back to article Oracle and the Attack of the Killer Stack

Oracle will have to look more like HP and HP will have to look more like Oracle. The other converged or unified IT stack system vendors will have to look more like HP and Oracle too, or get left behind. How do I justify this view? Distributed processing was like seeing centrifugal force in action as the various parts of IT, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Few CIOs

Are stupid enough to lock themselves into Larry's price-gouging factory. If you're going to do that, you might as well outsource to the cloud entirely.

0
1
Grenade

re: Few CIOs

Oh, how wrong you are. IBM is notorious for quoting one price up front and then nailing you on the back end -- but everyone still keeps coming back for more. At least Oracle is honest about charging you a lot and they even have a better product (Oracle DB vs DB2).

0
0

Le plus ca change...

So, we're heading back to the mainframes, then? One vertically-integrated stack with networking, apps, database and storage?

Why was this a bad thing, again?

0
0

One of reasons I guess

I guess energy/space usage and getting rid of such spoiled, amateurish bullshit is the reason why IBM manages to sell more mainframes or mainframe like POWER monsters each year.

0
0

Back to old school

Why is a bad thing? When you are locked-in. The supplier will come with a fixed date and fixed maintenance price. Tell you straight in the face .. take it at this date and price or leave it without support, maintenance update and etc.

0
0
Welcome

Plus ca change

We used to have these proprietary converged multi-capbility stacks when I started in IT. We called them mainframes.....

0
0
Pint

Centralization!

Long Live Amdahl!

Off to St. Johns we go!

0
0
Flame

Freudian Slip?

"...Dell has to bulk out its networking offering and get base supplication software..."

Yes... If things go on as they are we certainly will be back to worshipping at the temple of Mainframe...

0
0

Perhaps I am being tricked by PR companies but...

For years, I admired and trusted IBM and HP far more than Oracle.

As an end user, Oracle managed to make me look stupid triple times. I said they aren't stupid to kill java, they aren't stupid to undermine mysql and especially, they won't break a working system (openoffice).

You professional IT guys must be spending 5x time while trying to figure/predict what the heck Oracle wants to do today.

I was also surprised with their Itanium, enterprise CPU drop. Never used Itanium but as far as I read, it is optimized for enterprise and x86 (even 64bit) lacks certain functions and not feasible to add them to end user stuff. Right?

Anyway, once you go to HP site or IBM, see they support stuff shipped before many "nerds" were born and see Oracle drop enterprise cpus making Intel, chipzilla, mad... You see who deserves respect and trust.

Undermining a CPU in Intel's roadmap and making them look like liars? Even SJobs couldn't dare that.

0
0
Happy

re: Perhaps I am being tricked by PR companies but...

"...Oracle managed to make me look stupid triple times."

You underestimate yourself, surely.

0
0

eh I confess

You can find my "oracle isn't that stupid" posts on /.

Perhaps, I should have posted them and these as AC :)

0
0
Silver badge

Maybe

If you posit that HP merely lacks the DB perhaps that's one reason why Larry bought MySQL, as it was part of his long-term screw everyone strategy.

0
0

Lock-in is a non argument isn't it?

I liken lock-in to trying to get the last bit of air out of a bouncy castle you hired for your kids' birthday party: you stamp on the bubble of air in an attempt to get it out and it pops up somewhere else.

Virtualisation is held up as a panancea to all of this but, pardon me, where is the openness of the Hypervisor? Sure, you get 'freedom' with your hardware (coughs - anyone tried building a production VM farm with differing hardware and chipsets?) but the lock-in moves to the Hypervisor.

"Go for commodity servers" I hear the cry. Well, all the stuff that sits on top of it (build processes and management tools etc. ) *always* have hooks linked to the hardware. I was there when procurement came in and said "I know we decided on HP 18 months ago and we're about to go live but, my, those Dells are cheap". EEK!

And even if you do get some amazing abstraction to allow complete freedom in the infrastructure layer the problem then moves to the complexity you'll create for yourself in the evaluation / RFP process (cue an army of sourcing advisers queuing up to extract your firm's money)

So - I suggest lock-in is always there (you try and move your core banking application or ERP system at short notice to anything else or change one of the component parts) and it's about recognising that and ensuring you and your providers have a good, open and mutually beneficial working relationship. I think you need to ensure you have the option of change but don't let that drive some religious debate about vendors.

0
1
Happy

re: Lock-in is a non argument isn't it?

"...where is the openness of the Hypervisor?"

Xen seems pretty darn open to me... If Citrix upsets you, then go to Oracle, if Oracle upsets you, then go to SUSE, or NetBSD, or Solaris...

0
0

Planes, trains and automobiles

Consumers buy cars, businesses buy planes. Ergo, cars are the equivalent to ITs iPads, netbooks, laptops, etc, while planes are the equivalent of ITs heavy lift data center platforms. One's customization at the car level is pretty much cosmetic and narcissistic but the plane operator can choose engines, avionics and interior fit (all high ticket & RoI sensitive items) from a range of options and even vendors. Probably not a good analogy.

Business should be wary of buying the IT stack from one vendor for the reasons posted above.

Trains are a good base for analogies with IT but mostly Joe Punter doesn't like trains,

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums