|
|
|
|
|
by pipo234
95 days ago
|
|
> Output is a lot harder to measure, which means it can be fudged easily. First and foremost, this is about Oracle. For the short period I worked there, my impression about culture and tech was: mediocre. Not excellent, not poor but just a around average. Which raises the question: why is it such a successful company commercially? I believe it's being ruthless to customers, employees and suppliers combined with cooking the financials. Which bring me to your remark about output being difficult to measure. Imho Oracle had been exceptionally good at manipulating and obfuscating their output. And this was true long before AI came to the scene. |
|
That's probably where you'll end up if you're a company where that's an option.
No one was ever going to switch databases to a better DB as long as:
1) they did the bare minimum to ensure no alternative existed where switching made any sense.
2) they never charged too much where it made sense to switch thinking along the lines these businesses made decisions.
It's like the resource curse played out on a company scale.
If you have no incentive to get better, you won't.