Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Vox Voxplains Oracle, without once mentioning the CIA   (gizmodo.com.au) divider line
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

421 clicks; posted to STEM » on 21 Oct 2020 at 10:50 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



13 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-21 9:29:24 AM  
"Oracle does a lot of shiat!"

....And they still can't make an properly updated/working EF library.
 
2020-10-21 11:00:52 AM  
Oracle was founded on a contract with the CIA to build out an application following this new idea that emerged from IBM called a "relational database". They did the best they could, but it wasn't good enough and the CIA rejected their work. Wondering what they should do with it now that they didn't have a customer, Larry came up with the idea that they should rebrand it and sell it commercially. In order to assuage any skepticism from potential corporate customers, they labeled it "Oracle 2.0", because "everybody knows that 1.0 products are buggy".
 
2020-10-21 11:42:33 AM  

Captain Orr: Oracle was founded on a contract with the CIA to build out an application following this new idea that emerged from IBM called a "relational database". They did the best they could, but it wasn't good enough and the CIA rejected their work. Wondering what they should do with it now that they didn't have a customer, Larry came up with the idea that they should rebrand it and sell it commercially. In order to assuage any skepticism from potential corporate customers, they labeled it "Oracle 2.0", because "everybody knows that 1.0 products are buggy".


And now browser companies come along and make a new whole version every few weeks. Firefox is on version 8 now. I used pre 1.0 (firebird and phonix era)... After 1.0, it took 7 or 8 years to go 5.0.

This whole 4 to 6 week cycle for a "major" version is crap. Most of these releases are actually minor version (.1), if not just an incremental release (.0.1).

There's been a handful of large enough releases, like when they completely switched add-in methodology, when they went rust or for Firefox Quantum that should absolutely be a whole version. But honestly they should probably be around 10 or 12 at this point, not 82.

Companies play with version numbers all the time, Windows 9, for instance. And moving from numbered releases to year based numbering. (Even Visual Studio or SQL Server that have actual build numbers like 18.0... but marketing names like SQL Server 2018, and they still skip versions of those build numbers.)
 
2020-10-21 12:16:41 PM  

Quantumbunny: Companies play with version numbers all the time, Windows 9, for instance.


windows 9 couldn't exist b/c there was too much legacy software doing string matching for win97 and 98 as "windows 9*"  if they had actually made "windows 9" the corporate world would have ended.
 
2020-10-21 12:18:57 PM  

Quantumbunny: This whole 4 to 6 week cycle for a "major" version is crap


It makes perfect sense when your primary target audience isn't sysadmins. People just want to know if they have the latest, give them one number and it's simple to figure out.
 
2020-10-21 12:27:35 PM  

SMB2811: Quantumbunny: This whole 4 to 6 week cycle for a "major" version is crap

It makes perfect sense when your primary target audience isn't sysadmins. People just want to know if they have the latest, give them one number and it's simple to figure out.


Yes well, I'm happy to complain about people generally being too stupid.

They should be able to handle at least major and minor version numbers.
 
2020-10-21 12:37:18 PM  

Quantumbunny: Captain Orr: Oracle was founded on a contract with the CIA to build out an application following this new idea that emerged from IBM called a "relational database". They did the best they could, but it wasn't good enough and the CIA rejected their work. Wondering what they should do with it now that they didn't have a customer, Larry came up with the idea that they should rebrand it and sell it commercially. In order to assuage any skepticism from potential corporate customers, they labeled it "Oracle 2.0", because "everybody knows that 1.0 products are buggy".

And now browser companies come along and make a new whole version every few weeks. Firefox is on version 8 now. I used pre 1.0 (firebird and phonix era)... After 1.0, it took 7 or 8 years to go 5.0.

This whole 4 to 6 week cycle for a "major" version is crap. Most of these releases are actually minor version (.1), if not just an incremental release (.0.1).

There's been a handful of large enough releases, like when they completely switched add-in methodology, when they went rust or for Firefox Quantum that should absolutely be a whole version. But honestly they should probably be around 10 or 12 at this point, not 82.

Companies play with version numbers all the time, Windows 9, for instance. And moving from numbered releases to year based numbering. (Even Visual Studio or SQL Server that have actual build numbers like 18.0... but marketing names like SQL Server 2018, and they still skip versions of those build numbers.)


Before I came to work for my company, someone, in their infinite wisdom, decided that version numbers would be major.minor.farkingdate for the files and only major.minor for the main product.  We have a suite with a bunch of libraries.  Clients can't tell what release they have because you could have ten different versions of 1.04.  Years ago, one of the programmers put a "version" menu option in the "launcher" context menu which returns the library dates and outputs it to a file they can copy or just send to us so we can see if they have specific updates.  It's farking nuts.

Years ago, with our new product, I made the suggestion of major.minor.release.build for files *and* the main product with history tracking through TFS and our VP/QA/son-of-the-owner almost came unglued because "you can't have two versioning methods in the procedures" (and I'm stating it better than he articulated).
 
2020-10-21 12:56:36 PM  
Maybe Vox should go back to Voxplaining how to assemble gaming computers.

/everyone got their swiss army knives?
 
2020-10-21 1:19:03 PM  

oopsboom: Quantumbunny: Companies play with version numbers all the time, Windows 9, for instance.

windows 9 couldn't exist b/c there was too much legacy software doing string matching for win97 and 98 as "windows 9*"  if they had actually made "windows 9" the corporate world would have ended.


notsureifserious.gif
 
2020-10-21 1:26:49 PM  
fark whoracle.

They bought out those assholes over at Responsys and it took quite a bit of effort to get them to admit they owned the IP space that was spamming me.
 
2020-10-21 2:38:31 PM  
Quantumbunny:

Companies play with version numbers all the time


Reminds me when i setup my first checking account.  My faster told me to order checks starting at check #1000.  This way it wouldn't look like a new account.
 
2020-10-21 4:52:53 PM  
It's because mentioning that a large company was founded based on a DOD/Intelligence project or with DOD/Intelligence funding is farking stupid. Almost all of our big tech firms from the first days of computing and the web were connected to the DOD and US intelligence because those were the only people funding tech and computer companies.
 
2020-10-22 2:24:05 AM  

oopsboom: Quantumbunny: Companies play with version numbers all the time, Windows 9, for instance.

windows 9 couldn't exist b/c there was too much legacy software doing string matching for win97 and 98 as "windows 9*"  if they had actually made "windows 9" the corporate world would have ended.


Is there any truth to it? Because that's the kind of crap I've gotten at programmers for.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.