Thread

1. ahmd-sh · 1789760365 · focus · HN ↗

   i despise where Google is going with this. it's a duopoly in the smartphone OS space and we need (for lack of a better analogy, spare the technicals) open-source distros like we have with Linux on desktop.

   Graphene is reaching that status for me every day and i'm looking forward to switching to it as my daily driver.

   1. b112 · 1789761282 · focus · HN ↗

      If Google doesn't smarten up, it will no longer be in control of Android.

      Oracle was a mighty powerhouse when it bought MySQL, StarOffice, and more. It lost defacto control of all of them, due to its stupidity. In the world of open source, the tighter you hold on, the less likely you'll retain control.

      And yet, here we are, with Google playing games.

      Google, a note: there are far more relying upon Android than you, and now there are forced alternative stores in the mix. If Samsung and everyone else said "sorry Google', or even a large majority, you're out. Gone. Nada.

      They can now fork, and force old Android to have their new fancy pants 'Play' store too.

      Google is also getting more and more pushy with Chrome. What if everyone depending upon that backend, shrugs and says "Sorry Google, we're hard-forking Chrome and we'll all maintain it".

      1. anonzzzies · 1789761863 · focus · HN ↗

         > Oracle was a mighty powerhouse

         It definitly still is. We run Postgres when we host our banking / financial stuff, but when we talk with banks and say that, they demand Oracle not that 'open source amateur stuff'. We have a version of our software for Oracle (and MSSQL) as well so no biggy, but still, we always try if we know it's not a complete immediate kill (which it will be if we put it in our documentation as only option). Oracle is still everywhere at the big guys.

         1. cyberax · 1789766802 · focus · HN ↗

            I'm advising a startup doing software for banks, and the overall attitude of their clients is: "We want to get away from the #&I$*@&^#$ Oracle, but we're stuck for now".

            Oracle used to be a must-have because it was one of the few products that could handle transactions on a scale of a bank, with all the requirements for backups, redundancy, etc.

            A fun anecdote. Back in 2000, I was present at negotiations (as a note-taker) where database vendors were bidding for a project for a factory control system. Vendors submitted benchmark results for various DB sizes up to 40Gb, and Oracle's rep hautingly said something like: "Our minimal size for benchmarks is 80Gb, so here are our results for that size".

            And this was a _lot_ for that time. Now? It's so ridiculously tiny that you can host it on a smartwatch. So why would you pay Oracle?

            1. anonzzzies · 1789806462 · focus · HN ↗

               Agreed, I had the same talks around 2000 but at the time it was still very much mssql/db2/oracle for 'real companies'. Yet i'm still surprised how much pushback we get, especially in Asian countries (India) but we do get it, a lot. And we have conversations with financial partners in the US as they advice our VCs; those calls go the same way 'ah, you are using that hipster open source stuff, yeah we don't do that here'.

               1. cyberax · 1789809587 · focus · HN ↗

                  Hint: a lot of time, the real answer is "kickbacks". Find a commercial Postgres provider (EnterpriseDB) and partner with them.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.