Re: Oracle doesn't permit downloading even critical patches without contract? WTF!

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, [email protected] wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:07:05 -0400 (EDT), der Mouse
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I must say, this does not compare very well to MS-Windows,
>>
>> Is it supposed to?
>>
>> Do we have any reason to think that Oracle considers Sun anything more
>> than something to be squeezed for every immedate-term dollar it will
>> yield and then the remaining dessicated husk tossed aside?
>>
>      I always thought Oracle sees Sun as a way to package Oracle in this
> really neat black box that you are supposed to turn it on and call them
> whenever the sad face lights up. In other words, an appliance.

That is precisely the way Oracle views Sun - just another 'aspect' of it's 
database puzzle. Unfortunately for us, Sun is no longer independent and 
will end up becoming a DB-focused operating system instead of being an 
'all-round' *nix for general business and end-user consumption. It's 
unlikely that in the longer term we'll see a lot of 'open' development in 
the SunOS 5.x field. Things like the OS + Gnome integration and other 
areas will drop away eventually.

The lack of all-roundedness is one area where Windows is beating *nix. 
Which doesn't really worry me as the two are fundamentally different.

I've long-argued that support for the 'little guy' is what turns small 
customers into bigger ones, since it engenders loyalty. When I ran my SRK 
business I used that philosophy (which is sort of how the SunShack site 
came about).

Craig.

-- 
Craig Dewick - Adelaide Australia - Web: http://lios.apana.org.au/~cdewick"
Email: [email protected] - SunShack: http://www.sunshack.org
Galleries: http://www.sunshack.org/gallery2 - Pantbotof and the Fading Sun at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/navarzo3/sets/72157622209300431/