[Info-vax] OT: news from the trenches (re: Solaris)

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <mailman.52.1426167594.1165.info-vax_rbnsn.com at rbnsn.com>,
	<lists at openmailbox.org> writes:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:54:04 -0400
> Stephen Hoffman via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-03-11 17:22:34 +0000, <lists at openmailbox.org> said:
>> 
>> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:27:24 -0400
>> > Stephen Hoffman via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> I'd wager that Oracle sales would be happy to sell to smaller firms, 
>> >> but they're running into some stiff competition with the likes of> 
>> >> PostgreSQL, SQLite and other databases.
>> > 
>> > No, the signals and statements are very clear on this and the feedback 
>> > is in. Small and mid-sized shops that were good and dedicated Sun 
>> > customers can't even get a salesman to call back from Oracle. Either 
>> > you're Fortune 500/1000 or you get a dial tone.
>> 
>> Yes.  Connect that back around to why that's the case, though: Oracle 
>> are aimed an the high-end, with prices and support contracts and 
>> support plans and the rest all aimed that way, and there likely isn't 
>> enough revenue available from the direct sales folks trying to dealing 
>> with the smaller customers, particularly given the smaller customers 
>> can potentially use other options.   Not that anybody particularly 
>> goals or can even afford to have inside sales folks around selling 
>> software to the commodity end of the software business.  Oracle could 
>> conceivably lower their software prices, but that means they would lose 
>> revenues from their current sales and they might not receive an 
>> increase in sales sufficient to offset that loss, if the prices and the 
>> sales are inelastic.
> 
> No, you keep thinking like a businessman and that is the right way to look
> at things in general. To understand Oracle you have to think like a
> megalomaniac. He does things that doesn't make sense, that don't need
> justification, because of ego, and just because he can.

And yet he got and stays rich.  Too bad he just doesn't seem to know
what he is doing.

> 
>> > It's very difficult and perhaps impossible for quality products to 
>> > exist in that marketplace where the consumer is driven by lower and 
>> > lower costs as what defines good, better, best. Things that work, are 
>> > highly available, secure, manageable, etc. are nice and all, but if 
>> > they cost anything (Linux is free, remember) then they're just too damn 
>> > expensive. Free trumps good.
>> 
>> Yeah; for the commodity end of the market.  There is at least one 
>> vendor that is still making a whole lot of money in computing, and with 
>> enviable margins.  In the computing space, that vendor is making it 
>> difficult for the commodity producers of Intel boxes for Windows, as 
>> the vendor is garnering most of the revenues in the most profitable 
>> parts of the computing market, both above and below Windows.
> 
> Apple? But they have no corporate channel. And businesses aren't buying for
> religious reasons. 

Say what!!!  I have had dealings with Blue Cross (many years ago) where
they paid 5 time (yes, 5X) the price for Kingston memory for their PS/2's
because they insisted that the boxes the memory came in had to say IBM.
While businesses may not have the Apple religion, the people ordering
products do.

>                     I remember when qualified technical people made
> purchasing decisions based on technical merit. For the last few decades
> MBAs are making purchasing decisions based on spending as little as
> possible and the intangibles be damnned.

If that were true they would be buying Acer or Dell and definitely not
Apple.

> 
>> >> FWIW and if processor elegance is of general interest to you, maybe 
>> >> have a look at the ARMv8-vintage architecture, within the current
>> >> crop> of potential choices.
>> > 
>> > I find ARM ugly. I know it has its fans but for a RISC machine it is 
>> > way too complicated and getting worse.
>> 
>> Have you looked at ARMv8?  Yes, various of the earlier ARM stuff was 
>> pretty ugly.
> 
> No, I haven't seen it yet.

And, ARM is probably going to continue to have and even see expanded
Microsoft support.  Especially if decent ARM based server class boxes
hit the market.

bill
 

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>