Re: Oracle headed for Legal Trouble

In article <4bo7oq$i0k_at_news1.deltanet.com> Kenneth Nichols <knichols_at_deltanet.com> writes:
>enduser_at_enduser.com (EndUser) wrote:
>>you miss the point. the vertical packages are not sold
>>in pieces. the product you are using is not the oracle database
>>or the reportwriter, it is the whole vertical, screens, reports,
>>database as an entity.
>>
>>what you are trying to do is redefine the product. you cant do that
>>since a. you didnt create the product, and b. you dont sell the product.
>>
>>if you are unhappy with the product boundaries, dont buy it.
>>it is still your right to not do that, but dont bitch becuse you cant
>>buy just the tuner of the tv, or just the refrigeration coils of your
>>amana, or just the rear two wheels of your car.
What if the tuner breaks, the coils leak, the wheels are stolen? What a lousy example!

>>
>>--
>
>This is not quite fair. It is certainly more common to unbundle accounting modules than to unbundle cars or refrigerators. Good pr=
>ogramming practice requires that modules be as loosely coupled as possible. Presumably Oracle knows this. So why do they force you=
> to keep all the modules resident?

Please wrap lines before 80!

>
>Of course you can avoid buying the product -- that is the stated purpose of threads like this one, namely, to get the word out. We =
>owe it to our clients and employers to warn them that this disadvantage comes with the Oracle product.
>

I've followed this thread, and am still wondering how exactly Oracle prevents 3rd party software from running.

If you don't evaluate and post for other products doing the same thing, it becomes FUD.

>>
>>In article <4bhg4g$9rv_at_newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jgreene_at_aol.com (Jgreene) wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Mendoza <rmendoza_at_titan.com> writes
>>>
>>>
>>> > For almost all of the past week I've been going rounds with
>>> > Oracle on a subject that might interest some of you. Oracle as
>>> > a corporation has taken the position that if you purchase and
>>> > install a single financial system (GL) you must also install the
>>> > databases and stored procedures for all of there other systems.
>>> > I am told by many in Oracle support that, and here's a quote from
>>> > at least 4 people in support) 'That's the way it is and there's
>>> > nothing you can do about it' (Now there's some good customer
>>> > relations).
>>> > So in effect what there telling you is Oracle is so big now they
>>> > can prevent you from installing third party software and there's
>>> > nothing you can do about it.
>>> > If Oracle persists on this hardline stance I think the US Attorney
>>> > Generals office should be asked to investigate Oracle. These large
>>> > software companies cannot be allowed to tell you what you can or
>>> > cannot put on your computer systems.

That last is true (Sherman Antitrust, as interpreted). However, that doesn't mean they have to tell you how to install the 3rd party stuff, eh? Is there really anything wrong with Oracle saying, in effect, if you want to run an incompatable program it's your problem? If the other programs use conflicting tablenames, is that Oracle or the other companies fault? I don't think so. Sometimes, that really is the way it is and you have to deal with it, rather than assigning blame, and look at solutions rather than problems. You should only expect more if you have explicitly paid them for more.

>>>
>>> I feel very comfortable that Oracle will NOT be investigated by the
>>> attorney general over this packaging issue. I have installed these
>>> products and asked the same questions that you did about what could I
>>> delete to save space on my system. The Oracle engineers did not have any
>>> idea. They would have had to go through every line of code, forms,
>>> reports, etc. to see what could be deleted and it was not worth it. What
>>> we have here is a clear case of bundling unnecessary data tables and
>>> stored procedures in with a software system where you might only want one

Oracle does have a tendency to give you everything, essentially doing licensing security by obscurity. Has anyones buyer ever thought to put a clause in the RFP that this is bad? "Vendor shall not give more software than requested." Sounds like a way to make the support even more passive aggressive. "Well, you didn't _ask_ for it."

>>> package. It is annoying as hell to DBAs and system administrators who are
>>> constantly under pressure for more disk space, but it is not illegal. You
>>> can still go out and buy an hundred copies of SAP financials and run it on
>>> the same host computer. Our only defense as DBAs, developers, etc. is to
>>> make this known on newgroups such as this so that other DBAs who are
>>> evaluating financial systems can bring this up when the sales reps call.
>>> If enough deals fall through because of packaging that makes life easy for
>>> the developers of the installation script but harder for the people who
>>> use the system, then the powers that be at Oracle will force their people
>>> to build installation scripts that only install what is necessary.

Personally, I would be happier if they would at least test the installation scripts they do put out.

>>> Besides, the attorney general is already busy defending herself (as is
>>> everyone else in Washington) from all sorts of charges, so there is
>>> probably no time to go on the offensive against Oracle.
>
>

The staff does all the work.

jg
(attempting to be non-partisan)

-- 
Joel Garry               joelga_at_rossinc.com               Compuserve 70661,1534
These are my opinions, not necessarily those of Ross Systems, Inc.   <> <>
%DCL-W-SOFTONEDGEDONTPUSH, Software On Edge - Don't Push.            \ V /
panic: ifree: freeing free inodes...                                   O