Oracle on the hook to pay data centre investors even if site has no electricity
Thread
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
Oracle on the hook to pay data centre investors even if site has no electricity
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
gchamonlive · · focus · HN ↗
*<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49842884">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49842884
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
jiggawatts · · focus · HN ↗
Every time I use Oracle, I regret it.
Just this month, I tried to hook it up to a modern .NET app with the latest Oracle client and discovered that if you cancel a transaction, the connection enters a broken state and is returned to the connection pool, "infecting it". After a half a dozen of those, the whole app server just dies with endless cancellation related exceptions. This isn't even the only such bug, apparently there's a whole family of pool-corruption bugs that have workaround config settings and everything!
This was with version 23.26.301 which suggests that they've had a lot of major releases, bug fixes, etc... but basic functionality like "connect successfully to the database server every time" is totally broken and has been for many years.
The issue tracker forums have tumbleweeds rolling through them and play the sound of wolves howling in the distance to provide just the right kind of "what are you still doing here?" ambiance.
JsonDemWitOster · · focus · HN ↗
My handle notwithstanding, I'm smart enough to not take legal advice from HN but nonetheless I cannot stop myself hence the rhetorical question: how is a EULA clause like that even enforceable? If this isn't going against freedom of speech then this surely it's against some consumer protection laws?
The cynical answer to that I guess is "a lot of money funding a legal team the size of a warlord's militia" and also "lobbying" but even then it doesn't track to me that this clause could have even that much of an effect as a scare tactic?
rswail · · focus · HN ↗
The EULA is enforceable because you have to agree to it to use the software, and Oracle has large and well financed legal team who will descend from a great height on you and anyone who publishes the results of you doing performance testing.
jiggawatts · · focus · HN ↗
There's no "meeting of minds" and there's no exchange of value if I simply benchmark a piece of software and then don't use it any further.
This is a bit of a grey zone legally, and steps all over a bunch of consumer protection laws, free speech laws, etc... depending on the jurisdiction.
IMHO governments should explicitly ban these "gag clauses" because it prevents free market competition if customers are not allowed to benchmark software and publish the results.
rswail · · focus · HN ↗
However they haven't, so until they do, you're stuck with the license as is.
As for "meeting of minds" etc and exchange of value, that's irrelevant to the conditions of the license. It's not a contract. It usually starts off with something like "By using this software, you agree to the following terms...".