[chrisco255]

The correct statement is some developers don't like Oracle. As for their business tactics, every business has to find viability in its own way. Obviously Oracle is providing services of value if they are able to consistently turn a profit on revenue in the tens of billions per year. This doesn't really answer the question why Facebook is not in the cloud business.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> Obviously Oracle is providing services of value if they are able to consistently turn a profit on revenue in the tens of billions per year

Not obvious; Oracle is known for underhanded marketing and lock-in. Or if you prefer: Successfully selling to the C-levels doesn't mean that you provide actual value.

[chrisco255]

Right, because C-level types are just spending $30B a year on Oracle services for zero value added. You shouldn't take your own opinions on a provider's services too seriously. No doubt there are some practices that are subpar but like any competitor in a crowded marketplace, there are going to be trade-offs between cloud providers. If the trade-offs between price, features, and value align with the needs of an organization, they will choose Oracle. That C-suite and devs have different needs shouldn't surprise you. There's always going to be some tension between those two groups, because their perspective on the business is filtered from a different set of parameters. That tension, by the way, will necessarily create a demand for different services and functions in the marketplace. You may not personally like Oracle, but don't pretend that some people don't, and don't imagine for one moment that it's purely out of ignorance.