[manyxcxi]

Honestly (having been through plenty of meetings where this type of stuff happens) it's because Oracle has someone out there spreading the word to The decision makers. The Oracle sales team isn't converting developers, they're in the ear of the person who signs the check.

Nobody is out there on the Postgres side doing the same, so that decision maker doesn't even know who they are. Then when someone suggests pgsql for something, the first question is, "Where do we get support?" Everyone then looks around the room and starts searching the web for support.

There is no question if and who will support you with Oracle (which is why I will never choose them).

[pbasista]

But should not the decision makers be smart enough to see through this? If they sign contracts, they should do a proper research first.

Just believing a well-known company which presents their product as "the solution to all your problems" does not seem very clever to me.

[manyxcxi]

I'd say it's less 'smart' and more due diligence. I agree that you should know at least SOME alternative options to things. We're seeing more tech Managers/Directors/VPs/whatever that used to be engineers or architects and I think we'll have more people that fairly recently (or still do) had their hands dirty in project work. The new wave of leaders are much more technical than the previous wave of leaders. But the problem still remains that once you've been away from the daily low level work, things move on without you. There will always be some disconnect. I think the new wave of leadership will better know that and hopefully respond a little better by having people propose alternatives to them, personally finding alternatives, etc.

I know that when I don't have the knowledge in a particular area, say payment processing, and I can only think of a vendor or two off the top of my head, it becomes someone's assignment to bring me the pros and cons of the major vendors and maybe a couple of the upstarts- including getting on the phone with them if necessary. The ultimate decision will be a combination of that person's recommendation vs. any business problems that may prevent a relationship (say some certification or SLA forced on us by the client).

There is also the psychology aspect of a well known name. They must be a well known giant because they are good, provide the best, or provide something the others can't- right? Now, WE know that mostly Oracle doesn't do these things. There are a few cases where they have kind of engineered a way to be the only one who does the thing (then got someone to make it a requirement in their project). We know they're generally abusive, and awful to work with. A not very technical decision maker just knows Oracle is a big name. Just like SAP. I'm not saying it's an excuse, it just is.

[wildmXranat]

You are right, but there's a way around the argument that allows them to still make a bad decision. It's called management by committee. They don't need to provide a good fit-gap analysis, sound points for the plan or quantify why it's better. You will simply hear that a group of smart people have concluded that it's a "good plan" and that they consulted with Oracle and their own experts who are also absolved of any responsibility since lack-of accountability is built-in to their contract.

It will cost a lot in time and dollars to actually get what you want and you will not want to litigate Oracle.