1. 21
  1.  

  2. 14

    Oh wow, I had no idea, and as someone who’s begrudgingly worked with Oracle’s products over the years, this isn’t shocking. If anything, it explains a lot.

    They’re somewhere between a law firm that sells some software and a drug pusher, and their products are pure torture to use. Of course the CIA was involved.

      1. 2

        Meaning…?

        1. 5

          It probably counts for his/the companies assholeness.
          I was going to say he’s into objectivism, but that’s not the case.
          To satirise it

          1. 1

            Not to defend a philosophy I don’t entirely agree with, beyond pointing out that my friends who are objectivists are some of the nicest people, I have to ask if you ever made a strawman out of a generalization of sample bias? And backed it up with satire that’s practically a parody of itself?

            I mean, giving objectivists shit because some large business owners read Atlas Shrugged, and apparently understood it, despite being douches, is kind of old.

            Nice bit of trivia, but ultimately speculative and irrelevant.

            Feel free to reply you never meant a generalization or something.

        2. 2

          And that explains everything else bad about Oracle.

      2. 3

        Didn’t expect this to make me laugh out loud, but:

        “Creating such a [national security] database is technically simple. All we have to do is copy information from the hundreds of separate law enforcement databases into a single database. A national security database could be built in a few months…”

        Mr. Ellison, have you ever done a data migration project?