The redneck knows about us...
<font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef">Haha! that's pretty cool. Good find.
In all fairness, I really do respect anyone who puts a redneck article (or any other highly ... umm ... personal) content on their company website.
Besides, I'm sure Mr. $500/hr is really the one getting the last laugh.[:D]
haha, that's awesome. They finally checked their referrer logs or something I guess...
or maybe they just googled.
The funny thing is, I found it by Googling "I Hate Oracle". I was curious to see where this site would show up in the results - currently, it's 2nd. I bet the Redneck consultant would be heartened to know that his website shows up in the first page of hits for "I Hate Oracle"[8o|]
<font size="3">I like his reply. He has an advertisement to a book at the bottom for a book called "</font><font color="#800000" face="Arial" size="3"> Oracle10g Grid Computing with RAC</font><font size="3">" and of course this book costs $69.95 and they hope you buy it. The most expensive toilet paper if you ask me but okay...
And did he address the valid points posted on this site? I'm not sure but I bet he would be a darned good politician. I see his words but they don't have any meaning. I'm not even sure if he agrees or disagrees with the IHOC...
Heck, that Linda Webb is hot... [:$]
Katja, I suspect if you were to ask him, he'd say something like "I'm not going to dignify those ludicrous accusations with a reply. [unless you pay me $500 / hour]" He does describe Alex's tirade as "entertaining", which suggests he doesn't even take it seriously. I guess if you're as deeply mired in Oracle as he clearly is, you can't admit (even to yourself) the horror of what you're dealing with.
Hey, people hate Microsoft, and bash them on a second by second basis, but at least they try to figure out why they are hated and fix it. For example, the improved standards support in IE 6.05 (on Longhorn) and the recent infestation of security into Windows and Windows related products. Instead of not taking this seriously, why don't they try to figure out what they can do better to bring developers to them, instead of driving them away. No Microsoft employee goes around laughing at others' commentary on them; they try to figure out what they are doing wrong and fix it.
Another reason I hate Oracle.
It's the "I-hate-Oracle"-club, not the "Why-I-hate-Oracle"-club. Oh, and I have never used Oracle, but I regularly read through the posts here because it's fun to make fun of popular inferior software.
I think the problem with Oracle is that they don't know which platform to support so they use Java to create a GUI that's supposed to be supported by all platforms. Of course not even Java is truly platform-independant but okay. They've created something, it's crap but hey, it also works!
Oracle is primarely interested in optimizing the database and they don't care that users need to set thousands of tweak options to get it running in the most optimal way. Other databases have all kinds of tools and wizards that will just estimate the best settings for their database but this is something Oracle just can't think about. They're in the business of storing data so who cares about user-friendly installations?
Besides, the revenue from all those people who need to be certified Oracle geeks is quite high as long as the product is popular. Since Oracle is a major player on the Unix market, where most geeks dislike user-friendly tools in the first place, I don't think they will change their ways any moment soon...
Of course you can consider SQL Server a better product because it's more user-friendly and every moron can use it. But SQL Server only runs on the Windows platform and is considered hopelessly insecure because Windows needs to be patched about twice per week or so, to fix a bunch of vulnerabilities and buffer overflows. And then I haven't even started about all those computer virusses on the Windows platform. No, from a security point of view, Oracle is better because it requires professionals to set it up and it can be installed ion an Unix platform that is less likely to be infected with virusses or cracked by hackers.
At least, that's what most people think anyway...
Of course SQL server is also insecure because most people who install it just use default settings and thus end with mostly default usernames and passwords. And it might leave too many ways open to access the server too. Dumb users will create very vulnerable SQL Server installations but they fill fail at installing Oracle properly...
And as long as there's no serious competition on the Unix platform, Oracle will probably stay in business too. Of course, DB2 is a good alternative, yet with similar weaknesses. Too complex for the average user. InterBase is a lot easier to install and more user-friendly but it's not really capable of handling the huge pressure that many larger companies will have to deal with.
For personal use, MySQL or Access are much better alternatives anyway. But all those "minor" databases fail if they have to deal with the amount of data that average Oracle/SQL Server/DB2 databases have to deal with. These are the big players and as long as they don't have any serious competition, they will just do whatever they like...
I guess the rednecks have spoken. [:D]
Regarding security of Oracle - check out just the current list
of security alerts. The usual buffer overflows, SQL injection and
other vulnerabilities. If you didn't know any better, you'd think
that list refers to SQL Server.
The database server is almost always behind the firewall, of course
(show me an organization that exposes their DB server on the Internet,
and I'll show you someone with much bigger problems than their choice
of DB software...) so the standard hacker attacks don't apply.
But that's not the point: the whole "SQL Server is a toy DB" and "SQL
Server is full of security holes" seems to be just more FUD from the
Slashdot / "We hate Micro$oft" crowd.
I think people in the industry in general confuse the notions of
"inscrutable, cryptic and complex to administer" with "powerful and
flexible". Since Oracle plays on its own terms - you have to
learn its cryptic tools and administration rituals - there's an
assumption that it must be incredibly powerful. It's the "mad
professor" of databases: since no one can understand what he's talking
about, he must be smart, right?
got another WTF for ya...
ehh... check the google results again.
If you'll pardon the expression, "pwnt".
I'm not sure but I think many small companies probably won't purchase a
webserver AND a database server just to host their own small website.
If you're a small company with 5 employee who are all in the business
of selling bread, cakes and cookies from the counter then it's a bit
expensive to buy two machines just so people can order cake over the
Internet at your place. All you'd need is just a simple website where
you can maintain a list of articles that can be ordered, a nice front
page for your shop and perhaps some minor additional things. Most
likely, that webserver/database server will probably also be used by
one of the employees to receive the emails with customer orders and
Oracle is perhaps very good for the huge companies. SQL Server is more
in use with middle-sized and smaller companies. (And the smallest ones
probably use MS-Access instead...)
So yes, I do think many companies will have webserver and database
server on the same system just because it's more cost-effective. Too
bad that it's also a big risk in that case. It is quite easy to assume
that a company will just buy more and more hardware if they need it but
I don't think those small businesses who aren't deep into the IT stuff
won't be happy when they have to buy new hardware every year. Would not
suprise me if many of those companies use hardware that's 5 to 10 years
old. And basically, they just can't afford to upgrade simply because IT
is not their business so whatever upgrade they buy, they probably have
no use for all the additional features.
Or as my dad likes to say: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
They say the same thing about our dinosaur of a mainframe where I work
(a major bank here in the Philippines). If it aint broke don't fix it.
Makes sense right?
So whenever we need to develop something on the damn old dinosaur, or
need to do some simple modification, we have to call abroad to the US,
talk to their non-technical people, try to convince them that yes we
need this done because our damn banking rules just changed and we need
them that way, no we don't need your newer version, no we don't really
want to pay you too much because we're only changing a few fields, etcetera etcetera.
In the end we're at their mercy, but we really can't do much about it because 30 years of data is stored in that damn mainframe.
Lesson learned: it doesn't need to be broke to really need fixing.
It seems to me your bank is just using the wrong approach here. Why not
add a second system that links the data from the old system with data
from a new system? Compare it to building houses. If you have one house
with 4 floors, you can often add one or two more floors without having
to bread down the old building. Sometimes you will need to add some
reinforcements within the current building and perhaps adjust the
current roof but hey, it is possible. And if you really can't put
anything on top of it, put something next to it since that is always a
better solution than tearing down an existing solution and then hope
you'll get something back that is as reliable as the old one...
Replacing a well-proven system by an unproven new one is always a big risk. One flaw could become quite expensive...