Jump to content

Talk:Oracle Corporation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 141.58.45.41 (talk) at 16:38, 18 June 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Citication needed on June 1979

" The company decides to name the first version of its flagship product "version 2" rather than "version 1" because it believes customers might hesitate to buy the initial release of its product.[citation needed]" This is stated in reference 8 on page xxx. This page is viewable in the book preview on amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Oracle9i-Performance-Tuning-Techniques-Osborne/dp/0072224738 141.58.45.41 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slogans

There is a "citation needed" link in the slogan "Unbreakable". I found this document which describes the slogan and appears to be witten by Oracle itself. Shall we incorporate it? http://www.cgisecurity.com/database/oracle/pdf/unbreak3.pdf

Some input

Think.com is actually one program run by Oracle Education Foundation, together with another purchased program called ThinkQuest. These programs are purely non-profit, charitable ones for students from 7 to 16 year old.--Junqing.wang 07:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Junqing.Wang[reply]

Too much detail?

Someone needs to go through that history timeline and get rid of all the little stuff that is not of interest to the average reader. It's almost as if every former employee tried to get a shout out to the product they worked on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.148.113.31 (talk • contribs) 08:48, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Too much arcane detail in this article: readers interested in Oracle don't need to know every building address, for example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.148.113.31 (talk • contribs) 09:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, the source for most of the information in the history section was the November/December 2001 issue of Oracle Magazine [1]. Since this information originally appeared in an Oracle owned publication, the history does tend to put a slightly glossy marketing spin on the past. Edits are most welcome... the primary reason I fleshed out this section was that it previously consisted of only two entries: one for the year Oracle was founded and one for the year Oracle bought PeopleSoft. I'm probably not the right person to make subjective edits to this section, since I have a vested interest... BrianDuff 08:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the section of the timeline for RDBMS releases, which is not informative and of little interest to the average reader. The significant events already appear on the more generalized tech timeline. Crysb (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They might be interested, but if the information isn't here, then they'll never know. Nohat 07:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, heck, lets include the menus in the cafeterias then. When does the detail stop? Please folks, keep the cocntent relevent. Just because you know some arcane fact doesn't mean it belongs in the encyclopedia entry. And just because I'm anon, doesn't mean I'm a vandal.- anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.148.114.16 (talk • contribs) 06:20, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, this is perhaps not the right place for so much detail. I can add details of the menus in the restaurants if you want though :) BrianDuff 08:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like detail; those who don't can use the article's heading structure to bypass it. When I found out about the 2005 publication of the password hashing algorithm I felt it was a useful addition because, as a DBA at that time, I had no idea why Oracle suddenly started giving so much security advice. Salting the marketing hype with a few reality checks about Oracle's corporate foibles will help customers develop a healthy skepticism about Oracle more quickly. --Deangup (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about Retek ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.96.104.228 (talk • contribs) 01:52, November 1, 2005 (UTC)

origin of Oracle name/CIA project

"March 1983: RSI rewrites Oracle in C for portability [...] The word Oracle was the name of an unfinished consulting project for the CIA where the CIA wanted to use this new SQL language that Dr. Edgar F. Codd of IBM had written a white paper about."

I don't know enough to make the edit myself, but this is poor organization. The information in the last sentence should go either in the first timeline entry that mentions the Oracle database ("version 2"), in a separate timeline entry for the CIA project, or in the body of the article.Tennin 20:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Database-Symbol-Style"?

The caption for the image of Oracle HQ uses the term "Database-Symbol-Style". I could find nowhere on the web that mentions "Database-Symbol-Style" except this page, and its syndications.

What does this mean? Lewisham 21:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When representing a database diagrammatically (e.g. as part of a system), a circular cylinder is commonly used.--Michig 08:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My changes 3rd, 10th March 2007

On 7 March 2007 10:01 UTC, Ghepeu made a change which reverted my two changes of 3 March. My changes are here at lines 284 and 290: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oracle_Corporation&diff=113283447&oldid=112946127. I think Ghepeu's reversion of my changes was inadvertent. Isidore 13:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oracle acquisitions

I have created List_of_Oracle_acquisitions Page. Need help to move list of Oracle Acquisitions to that page. Main page should be used for highlights, Major acquisitions. Chirag 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't this article link to the list of acquisitions by Oracle and remove similar list from here) List of acquisitions by Oracle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.125.16.11 (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table here should really be replaced by the table in List of acquisitions by Oracle. Before that's possible however the future replacement needs to provide at least as good functionality and be as complete as the source. I just got the valuation sorting working correctly there now, but there's still plenty left to be done, i.e. date sorting and completeness check--Berny68 (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the List of acquisitions by Oracle looks as complete as the one that appears here. I think it could be taken out of this page to improve the readability of the main article. Crysb (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle 10g Release Dates

The "History" section has 2004 as the release date for Oracle 10g, while the "RDBMS release timeline" states 2003 - they can't both be right :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.171.170.128 (talk • contribs) 15:15, June 12, 2007 (UTC)

Oracle 11g Page?

Is anyone out there working on an individual article for Oracle's 11g system? --Amaraiel (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not 2nd Largest.

I remove "Subsequently[when?] it became larger than IBM after its acquisition of Hyperion and BEA." Ranked by software revenue, which was implied by the previous statement, Oracle is still 3rd according to CNet.Esoteric Rogue (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid repeating of "Oracle" in section headings

The sections should not repeat the article title. "Oracle Fusion Middleware" should be "Fusion Middleware", "Oracle acquisitions" should be "Acquisitions" etc. -Pgan002 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add Breaking news - Justice Dept sues Oracle

The article needs this recent news: Justice Dept. Sues Oracle for Fraudhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703578104575397573983263294.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneaholaward (talk • contribs) 03:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law Suits

Oracle has decided to sue Google for using there software which is under the GNU General Public License Use. This law suit is another flawed one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguy4353 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Given the recent news the neutrality has gone down hill on this article, I suggest either adding a criticism article for Oracle and semi-protect the article, or flag this article for not being neutral. 173.81.25.50 (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think these new is very neutral. They exactly represent Oracle’s policy and attitude change after acquisition of Sun Microsystem. They form an integral part on the identity of Oracle and is important source of information for people to understand this company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.163.247 (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add "Hardware"

Because Oracle now sells both hardware and software,* I recommend updating the first sentence so that it is an accurate description of the company. For example, you could revise it as follows:

Oracle Corporation is an American multinational computer technology corporation that specializes in developing and marketing hardware systems and enterprise software products--particularly database management systems.

[*Source: United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K, fiscal year ending May 31, 2010] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shujuku (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Mix

The article lacks a mention of Oracle Mix: cp Cook, Niall (2008). Enterprise 2.0: how social software will change the future of work. Gower Publishing, Ltd. p. 70. ISBN 9780566088001. Retrieved 2010-11-16. [...] Oracle now has an external version of IdeaFactory called Oracle Mix [...] for its customers to share ideas with each other and the company [...] {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help) -- Pedant17 (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Network Computers, NC Inc and Liberate

This article seems to be lacking some detail regarding this, IMO. There are some old Liberate docs at the wayback machine. --Trevj (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

What are your thoughts about creating a section for awards? They seem to put on a few quite prominent awards - Oracle World Retail Awards [2], Oracle Excellence Awards [3] M0z (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be careful and provide truly independent references about the awards, to be sure they are not just business promotion. I would agree that Oracle World Retail Awards is of independent value and importance, since it is sponsored by Oracle, but awarded elsewhere. As for Oracle Excellence, I may have reservations.
A rule of thumb: an important award deserves a separate article. Awards rerlated to Oracle business may be briefly described in a section (or even an article, say, "Oracle business culture", if one may write much on the subject).
I would advise to look into articles for other big guns, such as IBM, Microsoft, etc., and see what is written there on the issue of awards, if any. Last Lost (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does It Exist?

I failed to contact the corporation through its official site, by e-mail, by phone - support just doesn't work - and a letter returned back by post. It seems that the corporation does not exist anymore. Or somebody could give actual contacts? 79.98.92.109 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They exist. Their website lists their mailing address and phone numbers. There is nothing more we can do, if the company is not communicating with you, for whatever reason. we are not a support desk or ombudsman service.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.140.126 (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" Oracle banned from bidding for US General Services Administration business" -- needs review

Greetings from COI-land: the section titled "Oracle banned from bidding for US General Services Administration business" seems to be way off.

Two articles that appear to cover the bulk of the story:

The basic fact appears to be that Oracle's schedule 70 contract was canceled. That would not appear to preclude Oracle doing business with the government, as the second article points out:

"...a consensus of experts has emerged to say that the cancellation is not a major obstacle, neither for the company nor for agencies that used the contract to buy Oracle services.
"Since GSA isn’t suggesting suspension or debarment, and because GSA is openly referring to Oracle’s other reseller and partner channels to sell its offerings, actions leading to the cancellation are probably not egregious"

(emphasis mine)

So it would seem to be a stretch for this section to flatly state that "Oracle will thus lose xyz a year in revenue."

Needless to say, it would be a real stretch for the value of xyz to be "around three hundred billion dollars a year" as the article currently has it.

(I'm an Oracle employee, but not involved in any way with government purchasing, and am not speaking as a representative of Oracle.)--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oracle_Corporation&oldid=560471947"