[DandyDev]

Let's say that is the reason, then that seems a very valid reason, right? Accountability is important, especially in large organizations.

I guess what ticks me off a bit is the trope of dissing on management for saying 'no' but leaving out all the relevant context that might show management to be right.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen my own fair share of bad management. But it's not so black and white when it comes to grand sweeping decisions like "should we invest in PostgreSQL or keep paying Oracle big license fees?"

[vanviegen]

> Accountability is important, especially in large organizations.

Why? So we'll have someone to blame when things inevitably go wrong? In my experience, the people who like to say the buck stops with them are nowhere to be found when that happens.

I much prefer organizations focussed on actually getting things right, instead of worrying about who takes the blame.

[hubertdinsk]

I'd say it's also to stop people from doing dumb things (i.e. proactive defense).

Say, if the org runs Postgres in-house, there's a mighty chance that an intern somewhere might decide to ...test things out in a creative way.

Perhaps the idea of outsourcing that to Oracle is that Oracle has the processes/controls to rein in such interns. As opposed to e.g. a hospital having to create such processes/controls.

(Oracle is still a bad idea IMHO, just slightly less so comparatively)

[disgruntledphd2]

I once had a few drinks with an Oracle salesperson many moons ago, and he did a pretty good job of convincing me that they sold risk minimisation over personnel changes to my uber boss, which honestly makes more and more sense to me as I continue in my career.