Skip to content

Comment on Oracle on why you shouldn't use NOSQL (PDF)

Comments

"These companies hire top developers for their scalable (NoSQL) database implementations and to keep them running...Do you really want to build the superstar team required to make the NoSQL vision? You are not Google."

Wow - a salient remark about the state of enterprise software and what message Oracle sees resonating with management.

Are you saying that management should want to build a superstar team to support the DB?

DB operation is overhead. I can see wanting a superstar team to provide things that customers value, but no customer cares about SQL vs NoSQL.

The reality is running software (proprietary or FOSS) is costly...A large DB operation will be an expensive overhead regardless.

I wasn't commenting on SQL vs NoSQL and which will add more value. I was making a remark on Oracle's insinuating tone "Your developers are probably poorly skilled, your not going to change that, using new tools require new skills, you'll fail at that because your not Google - don't even try"

Regardless of my personal opinions, what happened to striving for excellence?

> I was making a remark on Oracle's insinuating tone "Your developers are probably poorly skilled, your not going to change that, using new tools require new skills, you'll fail at that because your not Google - don't even try"

That "insinuation" is mostly true.

> Regardless of my personal opinions, what happened to striving for excellence?

Striving for excellence in everything is bad business.

Excellence is expensive. In many cases, the expense far outweighs the benefits.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.