Slashdot Mirror


Oracle Dumps PeopleSoft Employees

curtain writes "The first move in Oracle's dismantling of PeopleSoft has begun. The cuts will affect about 9% of the 55,000 staff of the combined companies. From the article: "We're mourning the passing of a great company," Peoplesoft worker David Ogden as saying. Other employees said they would rather be sacked than work for Oracle."

258 comments

  1. money where your mouth is by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now we know PeopleSoft, CashHard. Thanks for the info, Larry!

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:money where your mouth is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, trimin' time is here!"

      Two companies enter, one company leave!

    2. Re:money where your mouth is by joper90 · · Score: 1

      Don't peoplesoft make products like HR stuff, that ineffect makes jobs redundent at companies that the software is implemented at?

    3. Re:money where your mouth is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the other hard thing.... but I like in something else.

    4. Re:money where your mouth is by NateTech · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'd say maybe if it's deployed correctly -- yes.

      It's not deployed correctly anywhere I've ever seen it and usually some idiot with zero background in GUI design and only limited database knowledge (hey remember, it's supposed to do all that for you!) laid out the interface. Many times that person is a consultant who's long-gone before the system is truly in production and people find its quirks and ask for changes... thus, those never get done either.

      It's typical "datbase do everything or Hulk SMASH!" crap that CEO's buy thinking it makes their organizations more efficient, without EVER measuring the different amount of time it takes an employee to actually accomplish a task with and without it.

      --
      +++OK ATH
  2. Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by martinbogo · · Score: 4, Interesting


    When Oracle first made a bid for PeopleSoft in 2002, PeopleSoft froze all hiring, and completely halted their Linux initiatives.

    Ever since then, both companies have had "financial challenges," and the combination of both companies was bound to create a lot of redundancies. It's just a pity that the combined company believes that there are over 5,000 redundant jobs in the merged corporation.

    Of course, that also speaks -volumes- to both companies hiring policies. Oracle is famous for creating projects, pumping them with quick new hires, and then dumping the projects (and sometimes a hundred jobs).

    It's not surprising, but what it says about corporate culture and hiring practices is sad.

    --
    "Don't worry about the problems you have in mathematics, I assure you mine are much greater." - Einstein c.1919
    1. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by Flamefly · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The fact is, that the two companies merged. With any successful merger the outcome is that overall costs are cut, otherwise what is the point?

      When two similar companies merge you obviously get overlap, and this is where the initial savings can be made, there is zero point to keeping two teams of support staff (be it in IT, HR, Marketing etc) when there is only enough work to justify the single team.

      How really else can you expect it to work? Would you honestly invest in a company as a shareholder if that company had 5000+ people employeed who essentially had no job to do, just twiddling their thumbs?

      Any merger that *doesn't* cut jobs, surely at least, partially a failure. You may not embrace capitalism wholeheartedly, but look around you, it's not too bad.

    2. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by criquet · · Score: 1
      Where do you get your facts?
      "Oracle is famous for creating projects, pumping them with quick new hires, and then dumping the projects (and sometimes a hundred jobs)."
      I've been with Oracle for quite a long time and have NEVER seen such a practice.
    3. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      The only obvious overlap (to me, at least) would be in management. The people doing the actual work should not be considered redundant because, well, they're doing actual work! That work generates revenue. When Oracle bought Peoplesoft, they paid for all those workers (so to speak). Eliminating all those workers is like saying, "We bought 100% of the company, but we only really care about 90% of it. We'll just throw the other 10% away." If I bought a gallon of milk, I wouldn't immediately throw away a pint of it just because I think I'm not going to be that thirsty.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    4. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Any merger that *doesn't* cut jobs, surely at least, partially a
      failure.


      Not necessarily. When the credit union I use merged with
      another credit union (in a town 3 hours away) no
      jobs were lost. Why you may ask? One had a lot
      of customers but not as much in cash reserves to loan
      out (can make lots of loans except has little money to loan
      out). The other credit union has plenty of money
      in reserves, however, they were in a smaller town and
      had very few people they could loan.


      Result: Two credit unions merging which helped both
      of them out and nobody got fired.

    5. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by jackbird · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not exactly. Merging two companies does avoid some duplication of effort. Do they need two accounting departments, for example?

    6. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by winkydink · · Score: 1

      We're running 17 modules of PS v8.8 on Linux.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    7. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by waveclaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact is, that the two companies merged. With any successful merger the outcome is that overall costs are cut...

      Yeah, I know what 'two companies merged' really means.

      I interned at a company in college that was 'merged' with another company. This was at a telecom company in the mid 1990's. One day there was a Big Boss type giving a lossy PowerPoint presentation on Big changes in the industry (i.e. the Inernet.) The next day all the old company's signs came down off the building. The day after that? I got to move from an intern cubicle to a manager's office. Of the hundreds of engineers on my floor, only a few of the interns and managers were left. Everybody got fired.

      I watched super-programmers with 35 years of coding under their belts walk out and forge start-ups that made them personally rich. Meanwhile, the remaining interns^H^H^Hemployees toiled away on building 'glue' code. Once learning to do world-class software engineering, we now migrated data from the original, unsupported and well-designed systems to the new company's 'manadatory upgrade' (and piss-poor) products.

      Oracle+Peoplesoft will be just as bad. I can garuntee that as soon as what's left of Peoplesoft finishes the needed 'glue' code to migrate Peoplesoft data into Oracle 11i or whatever there will be a sudden increase in PeopleSoft 'alumni.'

      Any merger that *doesn't* cut jobs, surely at least, partially a failure. You may not embrace capitalism wholeheartedly, but look around you, it's not too bad.

      Megers, feh! There are only stupid takeovers and product assimilation in the business world. Someone is either buying your top talent (never happens) or your top product (to shut it down.) If you couldn't hire away the top talent before, they won't stay now. Product closures is just capitalism in reverse. There is less competition and far too often the inferior product is the only product left in the market. People that think mergers are like happy marriges of two companies have never personally seen the look of pure greed on a pre-merger CEO's face.

      I'm not bitter though, it's just that the idea of mergers and the reality of mergers have nothing to do with each other.

      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
    8. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by jafac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      he fact is, that the two companies merged. With any successful merger the outcome is that overall costs are cut, otherwise what is the point?


      Eliminate competition.

      A point that most "lazzez faire capitalists" seem to miss.

      A *SUCCESSFUL* merger is a purchase of a "good" company, with skilled employees. Such employees can adapt to the new corporate structure, via the guidance of competent management, to remain productive, and not redundant.
      Unfortunately, such companies are difficult to find, and they are not convenient merger targets, because, more likely than not, they're already doing well on their own thankyouverymuch. Layoffs after such mergers, are usually kept to a minimum.

      A *TAKEOVER* merger, is a purchase of another company, and dismantling of it's resources, purely to deprive the market of competition. It costs the buyer a lot of money up front, because they're usually buying an essentially worthless peice of junk, in order to euthanize it. Or, in cases where they're buying a company that's not totally worthless, it soon will be. The only benefit to the purchaser is the destruction of a competitor.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    9. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may not embrace capitalism wholeheartedly, but look around you, it's not too bad.

      I noticed about 7 homeless people on the way to and from the store today. It's working great!

    10. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      No, but if they have twice as much business should they need close to twice as many people?

      Twice the facilities, etc. etc. This is just BS and opportunism.

      The main thing that people never realize in these mergers is what they do to corporate culture. This will instantly pit former people soft management(that remain) in FULL COMPETITION with the oracle management. People will form clicks as they try to save their jobs. People will rat on each other and kiss ass of who they think will keep them around.

      It brings to an instant and sudden halt, all proper management decisions, and makes all forthcomming decisions solely for the keeping of ones job. The cut-throat culture that results can take decades to get rid of, if ever.

      Hey look at me!!! i fired more of my subordinates "saving" the company more money than any other manager...

    11. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      The fact is, that the two companies merged. With any successful merger the outcome is that overall costs are cut, otherwise what is the point?

      The fact is that Oracle bought out the competition and is now dismantling it. Expect to hear of more job cuts in the near future. There will also be a migration path for Peoplesoft users. Remember, you heard it here first.

    12. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally the management becomes redundant as well; do you think that the CEO of PeopleSoft will still be an Oracle employee a year from now?

    13. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Of course, that also speaks -volumes- to both companies hiring policies. Oracle is famous for creating projects, pumping them with quick new hires, and then dumping the projects (and sometimes a hundred jobs)."

      I rather have a hire-fired company that an outsourced company.

      I know both PeopleSoft and Oracle have outsourced. So, for the record, PeopleSoft does not have great environment like many have tried to say.

    14. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Any merger that *doesn't* cut jobs, surely at least, partially a failure. You may not embrace capitalism wholeheartedly, but look around you, it's not too bad.



      What if you can't look around you because the power is off? Why is the power off? Because you couldn't pay the electric bill because you were laid off and can't find another job. Don't worry, you couldn't pay the rent either, so you'll be out in the sunshine and the great outdoors very soon. You'll get to see heaven soon too, since you couldn't afford food or medical care.

      Isn't our current economy great? :(

      A merged company could use the "redundant" employees ("redundant" or not, they are still people) as part of new operations or expansion. Or they could in-source some of the stuff they sent to India. Imagine that!

      Perhaps we should disallow mergers that cause layoffs, and disallow layoffs for 1 year after a merger - this would put a damper on merger related layoffs and give the company time to find new permanent duties for those made "redundant".

      Mergers hurt the consumer. I know from personal xperience with cell phone companies - 2 mergers with the first company I signed up with, and 1 with the second - service went from excellent to horrible in both cases.
      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    15. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is pal, this wasn't a merger. This was a buyout. Oracle went on record back in the beginning as saying the reason they wanted Peoplesoft was its customers(and they wanted Peoplesoft out of the way)

      So now what will happen is that over a period of a year, they'll end up firing everyone except perhaps a few odd developers, probably the ones that are brutally competent, or the ones that really kiss ass.

      If I worked for Peoplesoft, I would now be trying to find a new job ASAP as getting fired is not a matter of if, its a matter of when.

    16. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by myov · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is that if the company has expanded (by a merger or otherwise), all the support departments need to expand.

      Sure, you only have one department, but if the company is now 70% larger, then you should need around 70% more people in Accounting. About the only savings are that you can reduce management, but the reality is that management never disappears.

      Of course, I'm self employeed so I don't really need to worry about this stuff...

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    17. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by myov · · Score: 1

      Hate to reply to my own post but...

      I worked in a government IT department shortly before it was amalgamated with other governments. While I'm no longer there, the number of buildings is roughly the same (even though 6 of 7 council chambers are no longer used), my IT department merged with the others to form one massive IT department, etc. Our helpdesk ticket database was designed for the amalgamation, but ultimately we still had the same number of machines to support, the same people:computer ratio, and ultimately the same number of people.

      In fact, it's recently been announced that the new government is more expensive than the previous setup.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    18. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by ces · · Score: 1

      Megers, feh! There are only stupid takeovers and product assimilation in the business world. Someone is either buying your top talent (never happens) or your top product (to shut it down.) If you couldn't hire away the top talent before, they won't stay now. Product closures is just capitalism in reverse. There is less competition and far too often the inferior product is the only product left in the market. People that think mergers are like happy marriges of two companies have never personally seen the look of pure greed on a pre-merger CEO's face.

      I'm not bitter though, it's just that the idea of mergers and the reality of mergers have nothing to do with each other.


      Sometimes mergers do work, take Apple and NeXT, Price and Costco, or any of the number of companies that Berkshire Hathaway has bought.

      Then again the corprate cultures of the merging companies in the first two examples were very similar and Berkshire tends to not mess much with the companies it buys leaving exsisting management and employees in place.

      Many customers claim that Comcast overall has been an improvement over AT&T Broadband, Verizon an improvement over GTE or Airtouch, or Wells Fargo an improvement over First Interstate. There is some thought that for many customers Cingular will be an improvement over AT&T Wireless (which has been going downhill ever since most of the old McCaw executives left a few years ago).

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    19. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by jafac · · Score: 1

      cut me some slack. The it-exemption to the posessive form isn't 101. More like 102. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  3. Re:The economy strikes again... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What a troll. It has absolutely nothing to do with the economy, and is exactly what happens during all tech aquisitions, regardless of overall economic conditions. The jobs aren't going to India -- they're being eliminated completely.

    The first to go are redundant positions, i.e., HR, finance / legal, etc. Then most of the rest (dev, PS, and sales / marketing) are typically kept for a time to absorb what they know, and then axed. The creme of the crop are kept or induced to stay, but, like the article says, most of the PeopleSoft folks I know would rather quit than work for Orifice / Horricle.

  4. Step Three by sanctimonius+hypocrt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, that was the point, wasn't it? Reduce headcount, cut costs, profit.

    I suppose Oracle also wanted to get closer to a monopoly by gaining market share. The point of the whole exercise was profit, and maybe personnal aggrandizement, given the participants.

    1. Re:Step Three by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the point was to eliminate a competitor through acquisition and enable the combined Oracle / PeopleSoft / JD Edwards to better compete in a market dominated by SAP.

      Any suggestion of Oracle attempting to create a monopoly through this move is nonsense -- their market share in enterprise applications is still a pimiple on SAP's ass, even when you combine the three companies now under the Oracle banner.

    2. Re:Step Three by uradu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm just having a hard time seeing how exactly this is going to increase their market share. Existing PeopleSoft customers would have followed the whole Oracle/PeopleSoft ballet with great interest and many would probably have developed the same attitude towards Oracle as witnessed here. So when it comes time to switch--since we pretty much know that Oracle will kill PeopleSoft's products--why not simply move to the market leader? What exactly would be the incentive for picking Oracle over SAP? Incentive pricing can't be it, because this is not a terribly price-driven industry anyway. In the end it would come down to product strength and public image. I don't see Oracle shining in either area.

    3. Re:Step Three by NewOrleansNed · · Score: 1

      Get closer to a monopoly? That would be like Apple acquiring Amiga and proclaiming newfound dominance. Peoplesoft did the same thing to a number of JD Edwards employees just a year or two ago, so I guess turnabout is fair play. What will be interesting is what happens to that mid market manufacturing market... SAP already has a version of their software that can compete with JDE and can definitely compete with Oracle.

    4. Re:Step Three by GreyPoopon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      since we pretty much know that Oracle will kill PeopleSoft's products

      Oracle says they won't do this, but if I were a prospective customer, I wouldn't bet my business on it. The fact is, it costs tons of money to re-wrap your business around a new ERP package, regardless of which of the big guys you buy from, and you definitely don't want to be doing it twice in three years.

      What exactly would be the incentive for picking Oracle over SAP?

      Absolutely none, unless you already are running Oracle business software. Despite some complaints about the user interface and failed implementation projects -- which were exactly that: failed implementations and not flawed software -- SAP emerges as a much better choice. It runs on a myriad of hardware platforms and operating systems, and also gives you a wide variety of database platforms to choose from, depending on your needs. SAP seems to have worked pretty hard to "play well with others," and recent announcements about working with Microsoft to integrate their EP product better with Microsoft's .NET products indicates that they continue to move in that direction. At the moment, SAP seems to be the best option for avoiding vendor lock-in. I wouldn't touch Oracle with a ten-foot pole for at least a year until we see what their direction is going to be.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    5. Re:Step Three by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      Keep thinking that as Oracle slowly steamrolls the world with their borglike tactics. These guys are oozing money, c'mon, Ellison sponsors a friggin racing yacht, or whatever the hell you call those things.

      In the world of America's Cup racing, money counts. As such Oracle Racing, with their hefty $90 million budget, nearly three times that of GBR Challenge, seem a good bet. But success rides on a question that's on everyone's lips: will Larry Ellison become the most high-profile owner/driver in world sailing? The debate about the rights and wrongs of a wealthy team owner taking control of a grand prix America's Cup team rages on with valid arguments on both sides.

      from here

      --
      music lover since 1969
    6. Re:Step Three by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      You are absloutley correct. Also, from the PeopleSoft perspective, the people in control of the merger were thinking that their new Oracle stock would be worth much more then PeopleSoft stock. While their executives that were not staying with the merged company would be getting nice severance packages.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    7. Re:Step Three by andy1307 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most people who make the purchasing decisions are management types who buy the software from the guy they get good stuff from(NFL tickets) or play golf with. Do you remember the last time a programmer was involved in making any such decision?

    8. Re:Step Three by aralin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      --since we pretty much know that Oracle will kill PeopleSoft's products-- Who moderated this one insightful? Its a bag of bollocks. More than 11 years ago Oracle bought RDB. There are still new versions produced for this product and existing customers serviced. Its not actively marketed, but Oracle didn't force anyone to switch. And thats at the core business, databases.

      You have obviously no idea what you talk about. Oracle wants PeopleSoft products, wants the lucrative support contracts and will not endager them by anything so foolish as trying to make PeopleSoft customers switch to anywhere or stop updating PeopleSoft products. If anything, the products will become better and a central focus, just to prove PeopleSoft customers they are welcome.

      Almost none of the laid off people were engineers working on the products, its sales, marketing, HR and middle management that gets hit the most.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    9. Re:Step Three by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      Almost none of the laid off people were engineers working on the products, its sales, marketing, HR and middle management that gets hit the most.
      Also known as Lion food.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Step Three by mvfranz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oracle wins either way. Since most SAP installations run oracle databases, choosing SAP over Oracle still puts money Oracle's pockets.

    11. Re:Step Three by uradu · · Score: 1

      > If anything, the products will become better and a central focus,
      > just to prove PeopleSoft customers they are welcome.

      Well, I guess that remains to be seen, won't it?

    12. Re:Step Three by uradu · · Score: 1

      > Do you remember the last time a programmer was involved in making any such decision?

      Who said anything about programmers?! Purchasing decision makers are responsible to someone for the decisions they make, and justifying the selection of a dying product with a fistful of Grease On Ice tickets won't get too many out of the hot seat.

    13. Re:Step Three by aralin · · Score: 1
      Well, I guess that remains to be seen, won't it?

      Well, you can start by asking the RDB customers. But I guess there is no debate with someone like you. The problem is that you simply thing that this is some form of malice at work. But its just business. And what you suggest has absolutelly no business sense at all.

      Just let me give you an example, you have an appartment complex, which you built and its cool and dandy. Someone else built one more at the other side of town. Well, you say, I got some cash, let me buy it. So you do. Now what you suggest is equal to asking the tenants in the other appartment complex to come move into yours, because its cooler. Well, you won't do that, you let them live where they are and you will collect their rent and still go around and fix broken washing machines, because otherwise they won't stay and your cash will stop flowing. You are not going to tell them to tough it up and if they don't like it move to your other appartment complex, since they would just decide they don't want to have anything to do with you.

      But as I said, with people who only make up their conspiracy theories its hard to talk business or sense for that matter.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    14. Re:Step Three by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      choosing SAP over Oracle still puts money Oracle's pockets

      Well, this is why SAP bought ADABAS/D and released it as SAP/DB. It doesn't seem to have caught on, but SAP AG wants to end its reliance on its ERP rival.

    15. Re:Step Three by uradu · · Score: 1

      > But I guess there is no debate with someone like you.

      You want to know a funny thing? I'm just echoing the view of quite a few industry analysts in this respect, it's hardly my very own, original and out-of-the-mainstream thought. It just puzzles me why you'd take the whole thing so personally, as if Oracle were your very own company that I just defamed.

  5. Larry may be good at business but... by jimmy_dean · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Larry Ellison may be good at business, be he sure isn't very ethical. This is a very cold, uncaring move to dominate a market. But could I expect any less from him...not really. That's why I don't use Oracle for anything.

    --
    -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
    1. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by QuasEye · · Score: 5, Funny

      That reminds me of an old joke - "What's the difference between God and Larry Ellison?" "God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison."

    2. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by gwayne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Larry Ellison may be good at business, be he sure isn't very ethical. This is a very cold, uncaring move to dominate a market.

      We tend to think that we're so much better off today than we were hundreds of years ago in the fiefdoms, where battles to dominate a 'territory' were fought by swords and loyalty was bought with title. Don't fool yourself. This was a battle for territory like any other.

      Things aren't so different today:

      • fiefdoms are now corporations
      • multi-nationals are nation-states
      • battles are fought on the economic landscape
      • loyalty is bought with cash
      • the one with the most cash is king
    3. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by mrscott · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with this statement. In general, when I look at solutions, I look at the technical merits and try to find the right fit. But Larry Ellison is one of the most arrogant, ruthless SOBs on the planet and I just can't bring myself to support the company.

    4. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by leathered · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another good reason for not using Oracle is because it sucks. We've found recent releases of their software to be buggy and a headache to install and configure.

      --
      For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
    5. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful
      be he sure isn't very ethical.

      Few of the great businessmen are. back in the late 1800's - early 1900's was the great robber barrens. They made Ellison and Gates look like minor players. In today's time, there is not just ellison. We also have Bill gates. He is border line illegal and totally unethical in just about all things. But just as throughout history, caveat emptor.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by Derkec · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except the employees are free to move to another fiefdom any time they wish and when battles for territory errupt, there isn't a whole lot of bloodshed.

    7. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless oil is involved?

    8. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by TheHawke · · Score: 1

      Heh, kinda hard to do that when they got a hammerlock on easy-to-use operating systems.

      --
      First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    9. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by cnkeller · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Another good reason for not using Oracle is because it sucks. We've found recent releases of their software to be buggy and a headache to install and configure.

      I can't decide if you are being funny or not. You must not have been using Oracle for very long if you've only recently discovered this. It's *always* been buggy and semi-difficult to install.

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

    10. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that you should say this.. and that it was modded up. I've heard quite the contrary, that PeopleSoft's products are in quite bad shape and that they're a kludge of patches. In essence, Oracle probably did them a favor.

    11. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by wheelbarrow · · Score: 1

      The picture you paint is rather grim and distressing. What do you propose that mankind do to rectify this situation?

    12. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Yeah, except the employees are free to move to another fiefdom any time they wish and when battles for territory errupt,

      In the old way, you could also pack what you could of all your family's belongings and smuggle yourself to apply for refugee status in some other country. In case of many families today in many businesses the hardships involved are on a comparable scale. In some places in the 3rd world where the multi-nationals run the show (own the police and government) you do not have even that choice and you are simply an indentured slave.

      there isn't a whole lot of bloodshed.

      Unless we are talking oil (Middle-east) or diamonds (Africa) or some other resource in short supply such as geographical location (Panama, Suez).

      In short the original poster was 100% correct, all that has changed are the names and the same ugly, vile and evil ways of some people only got a pretty, cheery wallpaper pasted over them to make them more pallatable for those who wish to ignore the facts as not to "clutter their beautiful minds" (quoting Barbara Bush) with such trivia so that they can keep on living in their McFantasy world.

    13. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by zakath · · Score: 1

      "He is border line illegal and totally unethical in just about all things"

      +2 Insightful??? This is a moronic statement if I've ever heard one...nothing like painting with a broad brush. Yeah, a number of Gates' actions in business have been immoral and illegal. But saying just about everything he's done is illegal and unethical is fucking stupid. The Gates Foundation funds a lot of charitable and very good causes...more people in Gates' position should do the same.

      --

    14. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gates foundation was set up by bill's wife for pr. in addition, everybody else in bill's position does a great deal more charity, but they do it quietly and without fanfare. paul allen alone, gave away more than 2x what bill gates charity did.

    15. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by vsprintf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Few of the great businessmen are. back in the late 1800's - early 1900's was the great robber barrens. They made Ellison and Gates look like minor players.

      There is no real difference between the robber barrons of today and those of the 1800's. Both used money and influence to manipulate the law and the lawmakers in order to build monopolies. Same old stuff, different century. That does not make them great businessmen. I prefer to think of people like Hewlett and Packard as "great" businessmen since they built a company that was a great place to work.

    16. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by zakath · · Score: 1

      Setting up a foundation like that just for PR...shake your head...are you truly that blind or do you post stuff like this for the karma bonus? *Everyone* in Gates' position donates more than Gates' foundation? Paul Allen (no question is doing great things with the money he has) donates 2x more? At least back your bullshit up with some links.

      --

    17. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by Derkec · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Getting from Oracle and Peoplesoft to Bush is an asshole in the middle east in two easy posts.

      Sure, where big money can be made and legitimate law and order are scarce - thugs with guns will profit on expensive goods. Be they diamonds or cocaine. Some multinationals actively support these activities, others avoid them at all costs and hold themselves to a higher standard. Most just try to avoid the most obvious interactions with the thugs and will allow themselves to be "duped" by middlemen.

      I never really bought into the concept that the war in Iraq was mostly an oil thing. It just doesn't make sense. If the priority was to get the oil, it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper and easier just to drop sanctions and buy some. Is Iraq even producing as much oil now as it was under OfF? Iraqis don't exactly love us these days either. Will they really let US companies control the oil fields in 10 years? Just doesn't make sense to me.

      I think Bush geniunely believed that he could make the world a better place by invading Iraq. I'm not saying oil interests weren't a factor, or a factor for those around him, I just don't think they were the prime motivation.

    18. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I think Bush geniunely believed that he could make the world a better place by invading Iraq. I'm not saying oil interests weren't a factor, or a factor for those around him, I just don't think they were the prime motivation.

      That is probably correct (although I would hesitate to put "Bush" and "thinking" in one sentence) but I was referring to Middle-east in generic terms, Iraq not being specifically mentioned. While oversimplification is always a danger, one can safely assume that most of the morass of problems would not exist there if it were not for the West and the USSR fighting it out for control of oil in that region for decades and before that the Western powers between themselves. Toss in a bunch of stark raving mad, batshit insane religious lunatics on all sides (Israeli Jews, Wahhabists, Fundamentalist Christians in the US) and you will get what we have now: a total crapfest.

      As to Bush, I think that what he was believing is of far lesser consequence as compared to what his masters and handlers (Rove, Cheney, Wolfovitz, Pearle etc) were believing, a major part of which was insane, miltaristic, imperious, messianic, Israel-flavoured ideology comibned with a heavy dose of corporate greed.

    19. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      The Gates Foundation funds a lot of charitable and very good causes...more people in Gates' position should do the same.

      There should not be anyone in "Gates' position" in this age. The monopolist robber barrons should have died out a century ago. John D. Rockefeller was also a well-known philanthropist and monopolist. Once you've looted the population, it's easy to give away money you could never spend in your lifetime. Perhaps Gates should fund the recovery and cleanup costs of everyone who has been hit with viruses and spyware while using his software - that would be more meaningful and more to the point.

    20. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by uujjj · · Score: 1

      That's what we call a "very old joke".

    21. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      URL:http://www.vhemt.org?

  6. Now they just need to acquire Siebel Systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then they can have a trinity of crappy products!

    1. Re:Now they just need to acquire Siebel Systems by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Eugh! That would be poetic since Siebel bought with extreme prejudice a company that I worked for.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Now they just need to acquire Siebel Systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Larry and Tom hate each other. I'd love to see that POS Siebel application go down the toilet. I guess this is the end of the best of breed nonsense

  7. Back in the 90's by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember hearing a news broadcast about People Soft when it was a new company. Just as the bubble started. Well PeopleSoft at the time was recognized for how well they treat their employees. There was a saying "If you don't like working for PeopleSoft then go to work for Oracle and really hate your job". I don't know how well PeopleSoft has been treating their employees since that report. But if they kept consistent switching to Oracle would probably make life miserable for a lot of people.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Back in the 90's by arodland · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know anything about any of this, but I do know that PeopleSoft made a crappy, awful product, which my school insists on using. Seeing as how their software couldn't possibly get any worse, from a UI perspective, tearing apart the company can't help but result in something better, making my life easier.

    2. Re:Back in the 90's by AaronLawrence · · Score: 0

      The fact is that business software like this is so complicated to develop and debug, that even if the UI is crap it can still be useful. That's business reality.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
  8. From the article by Quixote · · Score: 4, Insightful
    On the news, Oracle shares rose 15 cents - 1.1% - on Nasdaq

    Maybe there is a justification for eliminating some of these jobs, but Wall St's myopic viewpoint (job cuts => profit!!!) has always bugged me.

    1. Re:From the article by Rares+Marian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because the majority of stockowners don't ever actually talk to the company. That removes potential people who might care more to own stock in a good company than to buy some then drop it. Why don't people talk to the company? Overly optimistic, overly cynical (don't need to talk, or won't make any difference).

      This leaves the sharks who do it out of habit, because that's how sharks make money, talking to their prey.

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    2. Re:From the article by peragrin · · Score: 1

      This is a personal pet peeve in wall street. Stock holders should have an interest in a company. Not just the bottom line, but the people, and products.

      If you buy stock in a company you should also be responsible if that company did something wrong.

      Companies can all the rights of a person, yet none of the responsiblity to others.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:From the article by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

      How about if you vote no on a bad idea you pay 1% split by number of members, yes vote 66% / # members, and didn't vote pay the rest / # didn't vote.

      That should increase participation.

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    4. Re:From the article by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      You know, I think I found a link between /. and Wall Street:

      1: Cut jobs
      2: ?????
      3: Profit!

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    5. Re:From the article by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the brave new world of American
      corporate profitability -- where only the
      corporate officers are guaranteed jobs (and
      fat bonuses), and only for so long as their
      stock share price rises.

      One is reminded (from the world of nature) of
      certain species that are not only carnivores,
      but are cannibals. The MBA(s) running American
      businesses have learned that lesson well, and
      getting fat from "eating their young".

    6. Re:From the article by SunFan · · Score: 1

      On the news, Oracle shares rose 15 cents - 1.1% - on Nasdaq

      1% is nothing. 1% is an institutional investor's sneeze. Now, 5% would be something. 1% tells me that people generally favored the merger but weren't going crazy over it.

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  9. Mostly HR and Sales People by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 1

    From another article it said the R&D teams at Peoplesoft were going to remain intact while the HR, sales, administrative and markiting teams were going to be hit the hardest. Can't really shed a tear for those people, especially since I despise Peoplesoft apps.

    1. Re:Mostly HR and Sales People by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Can't really shed a tear for those people, especially since I despise Peoplesoft apps.

      How much of a role do HR, et al have in the quality of a company's apps? I don't ask our accountants what they think of a new feature's UI...

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    2. Re:Mostly HR and Sales People by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      How much of a role do HR, et al have in the quality of a company's apps?
      Indirectly quite a bit, since they hired the people who wrote them.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Mostly HR and Sales People by Eccles · · Score: 1

      HR people make hiring decisions? Not in any company I've worked for. They may help get resumes, etc., but the interviewing has always been done by tech people.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    4. Re:Mostly HR and Sales People by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      And how did these "tech people" get hired in the first place?

      Seriously, in many companies HR certainly have an influence - you know the stuff, gotta check out if he's a team player, yada yada. That's assuming you get to the interview in the first place, not always an easy task as they don't really know what anything means and are just blindly searching your CV for words: "This one's no good, it says here we need enterprise java and this guy's only got J2EE ..."

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. Looks like a winning strategy to me... by Cylix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Step 1. Buy Competing Technology
    Step 2. Destroy Said Technology
    Step 3. Slowly Move Those Customers To Core Product
    Step 4. Profit!

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    1. Re:Looks like a winning strategy to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, 'technology'

      I think I speak for everybody who has dealt with Spire before when I say PEOPLESOFT SUCKS!

      fuck them.

    2. Re:Looks like a winning strategy to me... by TicTacTo · · Score: 1

      Step 1. Buy Competing Technology
      Step 2. Destroy Said Technology
      Step 2a. Loose 50% (or more) of the customers to a competitor, in this case SAP
      Step 3. Slowly Move Those Customers (remaining 50%) To Core Product
      Step 4. Profit! Divided between you and you competitor 50/50
      Step 5. Winner = SAP!

      --
      /TTT
    3. Re:Looks like a winning strategy to me... by theAtomicFireball · · Score: 1

      Ahh... grashopper... you failed to account for a few things (and it's "lose" not "loose" you loser).

      1) Platform lock-in for ERP software is incredible. Migrating to a new package is incredibly expensive, risky, and time-consuming. The case has to be more compelling than "their software's a little better" to justify the move. Oracle will almost certainly make the "upgrade" path from PeopleSoft to Oracle easy, or will at least do a convincing job of marketing it that way.

      2) While Oracle has committed to supporting PeopleSoft, it's almost dead certain they will require those customers to move their back-end to Oracle (PeopleSoft currently supports SQL2K, DB2, Sybase and Informix in addition to Oracle), so by this move, they increase their database market-share as well.

      3) DIMHRs. The Department of Defense has committed to a multi-million, possibly billion dollar implementation of Personnel & Pay based on PeopleSoft. SAP is not eligible to bid on this job even if they decide to put it back out for bid. The current plan is to implement DIMHRs on DB2. Given congressional mandates that make writing a custom Personnel/Pay system nearly impossible, it is almost impossible to imagine any scenario where this doesn't end up as Oracle Apps on Oracle database. PeopleSoft also has a big presence in other Federal markets that now Oracle will be the only remaining credible vendor.

      4) As obnoxious as Oracle apps can be, they are still more implementation-friendly than SAP (you vill do it our vay because that is the best way and ve don't care if you are, how do you say, 'customer'.).

    4. Re:Looks like a winning strategy to me... by theAtomicFireball · · Score: 1

      and, dammit, I'm a loser too; I misspelled grasshopper... =-)

    5. Re:Looks like a winning strategy to me... by Cylix · · Score: 1

      Indeed you are correct on your first two points and I can offer no comment on the third.

      I suspect my friend who could answer the migration questions is sleeping. There are legacy support plans in place, but the migration is ever looming.

      It's already been decided, but things change so who knows.

      On point 4, YES! Though sometimes just the sheer features of oracle make things appear easier on their side of the fence. I was investing management software from a company and I was asking about their non-windows support. They said, anything oracle runs on... our software runs on... simply because everything was contained within oracle and presumeably apache which ships with it.

      (Though I can't remember if they had a seperate windows client or not... I believe yes)

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  11. Icon by BossMC · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but the wheelbarrow icon for this article seems a little inappropriate. What do they use when someone passes away, a spade?

    1. Re:Icon by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Mouseover on the wheelbarrow displays the word Databases. What does a wheelbarrow have to do with databases? Maybe the canonical symbol for database would be a little more description. A lot of the icons don't make any sense at all.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Icon by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot - what do you expect? :)

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    3. Re:Icon by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      They carry the load.

    4. Re:Icon by AgentPhunk · · Score: 1

      I think the wheelbarrel symbolizes this perfectly, as in "Bring out your Dead!" a'la Monty Python's Holy Grail. Larry just HAS to be John Cleese.

  12. homebrew db by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    1 (5 to 6-pound) brisket, trimmed but left with a layer of fat about 1/4- inch thick
    6 tablespoons House Seasoning, recipe follows
    3 tablespoons chili powder
    1 1/2 teaspoons brown sugar
    1 1/2 teaspoons onion powder
    1 teaspoon dried oregano
    1 teaspoon cayenne pepper
    6 cups hickory wood chips, soaked in water for 30 minutes

    Rinse brisket thoroughly under cold water and pat dry with paper towels. In a small bowl, mix together House Seasoning, chili powder, brown sugar, onion powder, oregano and cayenne. Rub brisket with the rub on all sides.

    Follow directions on your grill/smoker for indirect grilling. Place the soaked chips into the chip box, or make a pouch with tin foil for the chips, then place pouch directly on the coals. Place brisket fat side up in a large disposable aluminum pan and place in the center of the grate and cover the grill.

    Slow grill the brisket until tender and an instant-read thermometer inserted in the center of the meat reads about 190 degrees F, about 6 hours. Add coals and wood chips as necessary to maintain a constant temperature. Transfer the brisket to a cutting board to rest for about 10 minutes. Slice the brisket across the grain and serve.

    House Seasoning:
    1 cup salt
    1/4 cup black pepper
    1/4 cup garlic powder
    Mix ingredients together and store in an airtight container for up to 6 months.

    1. Re:homebrew db by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Yummeeeeeee!

  13. Re:The economy strikes again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
    The jobs aren't going to India -- they're being eliminated completely.
    Oh, well, that's okay then!
  14. How will this effect support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    My company has a major project that uses PeopleSoft software. I wonder how this will effect customer support, and patching/upgrading?

    1. Re:How will this effect support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might affect support, but I don't think it will effect support

    2. Re:How will this effect support? by TheRealFixer · · Score: 1

      Oracle claims that they will continue to support PeopleSoft products for 10 years, and keep up development commitments. But in reality, Ellison has no interest in PeopleSoft products. He bought it simply to destroy a competetor, nothing more, nothing less.

      Look for Oracle's "support" to mean "force you into our inferior product line"

    3. Re:How will this effect support? by notchcode · · Score: 1

      You will probably see third-party companies that support, customize, etc. large installations of peoplesoft/JDE products make a lot more money keeping things going, and getting more business from smaller installs that suddenly realize that a lot of the support base will be going away after five years or so (the upgrade path-life of these products).

      So, for the end-user, support will probably still be OK, especially for those people that have huge, CUSTOMIZED installs.

    4. Re:How will this effect support? by Donny+Smith · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >I wonder how this will effect customer support, and patching/upgrading?

      And I wonder how stupid you must be to post such question here when you have a PeopleSoft support contract and Oracle's web site to go to, you stupid sonnova bitch.

      I don't even think that "major project" is any of your concern. You're just trying to FUD here....

    5. Re:How will this effect support? by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Yeah right. He just spent 10 bln to destroy a competitor. He wants that recurring revenue stream from support. It's been the whol ereason for doing the deal since day 1.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    6. Re:How will this effect support? by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Hey, that was some great Oracle PR, Larry (as usual). :)

  15. Welcome to Corporate America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Corporations are not a democracy.
    2. Corporations do best for the shareholders.
    3. The majority shareholders are mostly a small group of already wealthy people.
    4. Aquire companies with "leveraged synergies".
    5. Fire redundant pawns. Feed jobs overseas.
    6. Lower competition.
    7. Handfull of shareholders get even richer at the expense of thousands of families and the business es they patronize.
    8. Most people and the local economy lose.

    Welcome to the American Way. /waits for the revolution

    1. Re:Welcome to Corporate America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The American Way"?

      Many 'domestic' American corporations are practically treasonous in their behavior. They have no incentive or reason not to be treasonous. The world most corporations exist in has no room for nationalistic considerations.

    2. Re:Welcome to Corporate America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course this comment this is out of context in respect to the Oracle-Peoplesoft merger. I am talking about the increasingly tightly knit nature of the world in general and how tying yourself to one nation can place you at a disadvantage in such a place.

    3. Re:Welcome to Corporate America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. You're joking, right?
      3. More likely mutual funds

      You forgot some:
      9. Claim that everyone will benefit from Economies of Scale and then raise rates and service fees while lowering service levels (Please stay on the line. Your Call is *Very* Important to us!)
      10. Reduce employee benefits to the lowest common denominator of all merged companies.

    4. Re:Welcome to Corporate America by KolchakNightstalker · · Score: 1

      The comments about this story are tepid, at best. I can't help wonder what level of outrage you peeps would be capable of if the name Microsoft were in place of Oracle.

    5. Re:Welcome to Corporate America by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      2. Corporations do best for the shareholders.

      Sorry, but that's only true for short-term stockholders which is the same class as the top management, and that's a bad thing. I agree with all the rest.

    6. Re:Welcome to Corporate America by akuma(x86) · · Score: 1

      >> 3. The majority shareholders are mostly a small group of already wealthy people.

      False. Most majority shareholders are mutual fund and pension funds primarily funded by middle class people.

      >> 2. Corporations do best for the shareholders.

      Therefore, corporations do what's good for the mutual funds and pension funds which benefits many average investors (ie - the majority).

      >> 5. Fire redundant pawns. Feed jobs overseas.

      If they were redundant - why should they have jobs? That's an inefficient use of capital. If someone overseas can do the job for lower labor costs, that SHOULD be done because wage capital is allocated more efficiently. Inefficient use of capital destroys wealth.

      >> 8. Most people and the local economy lose.

      False. Most people are better off by redirecting inefficient resources towards more productive ends. Costs are lowered and therefore people can buy more than they could before with the same amount of money -- more wealth is created.

      Insightful indeed...
      Why does slashdot hate capitalism?

    7. Re:Welcome to Corporate America by bgspence · · Score: 1

      And why are sharetraders called shareholders?

      They have no loyalty to the corporation. Jumping on moving bandwagons. Gone in a flash on the smell of bad news.

    8. Re:Welcome to Corporate America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does slashdot hate capitalism?

      Because Slashdot is filled with a bunch of pinko commies left-wing jackasses who haven't showered in months.

    9. Re:Welcome to Corporate America by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Don't need a revolution.

      The current system is in worse shape than being merely unfair, it is unstable.

      If the workers are hurt too much, then the consumers (who are the same people as the workers) can't afford to buy stuff.

      Now revenues go down, profits go down, wages go down and layoffs go up.

      You hit a certain threshold and the vicious circle becomes self-sustaining and self-accelerating.

      It results in an economic depression.

      The last one (Great Depression) bankrupted a lot of the rich, destroyed many companies, and caused the government to make major changes to the system to prevent it from happening again and also to restart the economy before everyone starved.

      Either we change the system now, slowly and at our leisure, or wait until disaster strikes and deal with the consequencies like it or not.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    10. Re:Welcome to Corporate America by //violentmac · · Score: 1

      i agree

      --
      --------

      get jiggy w/ ayn rand!

    11. Re:Welcome to Corporate America by m1066ad · · Score: 1

      Google "bonus army". Republicans and free traders seem not to remember that the US almost had a revolution in 1932.

  16. ya right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya, I'd rather be sacked than work for you dumb Oracle ... .... How much!?! ... well, um, er I shall take away your offer for more careful consideration. OK you got me.

  17. Re:The economy strikes again... by X43B · · Score: 1

    "The jobs aren't going to India -- they're being eliminated completely." Oh the horror. Won't you join my steam boat operator and hand cloth weaver's union. Protect jobs at all cost!!!

  18. RE: Wall Street by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Informative

    I used to be irritated by this too, but it's probably not realistic to expect anything different.

    "Wall Street" isn't some conglomerate of business people who sit around making decisions on whether or not company X deserves "reward" or some "punishment" for their latest business moves.

    A company's stock simply moves up or down based on the "knee jerk reactions" of the majority of people holding shares when anything changes in the company.

    Of course, this is obvious - but sometimes it's easy to lose sight of it when you hear all the debate/discussion by "Wall Street analyists" on the news. They're sort of like weathermen; making the best predictions they can based on what's happened in the past and what they observe. But ultimately, still not too much better than random guessing if they're projecting more than 1 or 2 days ahead.

    If you could somehow *require* all stockholders to keep their stocks for at least a couple years before selling, then you'd see people thinking more "long-term". But things like "job cuts = profit!" are a result of shorter-term thinking. "This move means my stock is goin' up so it'll be ready to sell next month!"

  19. Oracle's Business Philosophy by Detritus · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him, to ride their horses and take away their possessions, to see the faces of those dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms"

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Oracle's Business Philosophy by stienman · · Score: 1, Redundant

      "What is best in life?"
      "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women."


      Conan would be proud.

      -Adam

    2. Re:Oracle's Business Philosophy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "soft toilet paper and good dentistry"

  20. 4,950 people ... fucked over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how these corporations just think of people as numbers without realizing the fact that these people have families to support and bills to pay.

    What a great world we live in.

    If terrorists want to attack our country, why can't they at least target people like this?

    1. Re:4,950 people ... fucked over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Corporations don't "think" of people as anything. They are legal constructs on a piece of paper, not intelligent entities.

      And corporations made it possible for you to post your globalist rant on Slashdot. Show some gratitude, whining ingrate.

    2. Re:4,950 people ... fucked over. by bro1 · · Score: 1

      1. if you are good at anything you will not have any trouble finding something else to do.
      2. if you are good at what you are doing at work - you will not be fired
      3. If you are not good at anything then why do you expect some one to support you?

    3. Re:4,950 people ... fucked over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If terrorists want to attack our country, why can't they at least target people like this?

      OK dumbass, you want to drag "terrorists" into everything, you got it... The terrorists DID attack people like this, who the fuck else do you think worked in those two towers??

    4. Re:4,950 people ... fucked over. by gorjusborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. if you are good at anything you will not have any trouble finding something else to do.
      2. if you are good at what you are doing at work - you will not be fired
      3. If you are not good at anything then why do you expect some one to support you?

      I admire your ability to have that point of view. It was my own a few years back. The idea that pops into my head when I hear someone say such things now is 'young' or 'sheltered'.

      Now, please do not get offended. I know these are not attributes that people want to be known for, but in this case, it also means you are lucky.

      I hope that you can live your life without ever having to change the viewpoint you have.
      This would mean that you never suffered a politically motivated coup at your job, or a stab in the back from a coworker that you never expected, or a layoff of a crew of great employees because management is concerned with how analysts will respond to week growth in the quarter.

      These types of things happen, and none of them have anything to do with you as an individual. They are circumstances, things which are by definition not under your control.

      --
      If it's not one thing, it's Steve's Mother
    5. Re:4,950 people ... fucked over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someday you'll find out that neither #1 nor #2 above are true!

    6. Re:4,950 people ... fucked over. by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0
      The terrorists DID attack people like this, who the fuck else do you think worked in those two towers??
      Secretaries, mailboys, janitors ... but of course they deserved it for selling out to the man. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Right, commie-boy?
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    7. Re:4,950 people ... fucked over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "1. if you are good at anything you will not have any trouble finding something else to do.
      2. if you are good at what you are doing at work - you will not be fired
      3. If you are not good at anything then why do you expect some one to support you? "

      Hmm...nope on #1....er nope on #2...I'm going to have to go with #3. Maybe I'll broaden my horizons and give Liquor Store Robbery or Drug Dealing a shot.

    8. Re:4,950 people ... fucked over. by trenton · · Score: 1
      They are circumstances, things which are by definition not under your control.

      You're right, so why bother planning for them or thinking about them? Try to go for option #1: get good at anything and if you lose your job, then find another.

      Welcome to capitalism. People have tried other ways... and they haven't worked out so well.

      --
      Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
    9. Re:4,950 people ... fucked over. by //violentmac · · Score: 1

      Get over it.

      --
      --------

      get jiggy w/ ayn rand!

  21. Oracle takes a dump on people by GtKincaid · · Score: 4, Funny

    I realy should read headlines more carefully . This time though ,it looks like i wasnt too far off.

  22. To clear up some misperceptions by afabbro · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There seem to be a few misperceptions here about what's happening.

    IT people are not being laid off. Back-office people are being laid off. When you merge two companies, you wind up with two payroll departments, two HR departments, two legal departments, two accounting departments, etc.

    Fifty years ago, you mostly kept everyone because everything was done manually. Today, if you have a (computerized) payroll system that can handle 40,000 employees, it can probably handle 55,000. If it can't, you generally add more hardware/IT resources, not more people. The same thing is largely true about most back-office jobs.

    So, what do you do with thousands of redundant people? It's not realistic to think that you can retrain them all, or that they all want to be retrained ("hey, mister SPHR-certified HR specialist with 20 years' experience, here's a book on Java!")

    The people who usually survive mergers are (a) people in the acquiring company, (b) people in the acquired company who are responsible for making/developing the product, and (c) good salespeople in the acquired company. That is certainly the pattern here.

    I'm not saying that Oracle/Ellison is some lilly-white invisible-glad-hand or that the Oracle-Peoplesoft merger is a good thing...just saying that is the way it works in business and this wasn't really any surprise. This notion that "Wall Street loves job cuts" or "corporate America is so short-sighted" etc. doesn't survive that "well, what would you suggest instead?" test.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
    1. Re:To clear up some misperceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "misconceptions" there, chief.

  23. Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable-Clash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The main thing that needs to be worried about is culture clash. Many a merger has been undone because of that. The other thing for customers to worry about is "lock-in". Has anyone seen a merger that's improved service to customers?

  24. Stupidity or... ? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

    Other employees said they would rather be sacked than work for Oracle.

    Hmmm. It may be just me, but that seems like a rather stupid attitude to me - do you really want to give up your job, your projects and everything just because your CEO suddenly has a different name? It's not like there's another dot-com bubble exactly; these days, if you have a decent (and well-paying) job in the IT industry, you should probably try to keep it.

    Of course, it just may be that those who say these things already know or at least suspect that they're the ones who'll be fired, anyway, so maybe they're just trying to save their faces and make a better impression on future employers. "I quit" sounds much better than "I was fired", and "I quit for ethical reasons" sounds even better, because it implies that you so good that you can afford to choose jobs based on these things alone.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    1. Re:Stupidity or... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because they have personal ethics.

      That's why some people don't shop at Wal*Mart, buy Nike, or would work at a cigarette manufacturer. They're not money whores.

      They think Ellison's a prick and don't want to be associated with him. I think they'd do the same if Gates bought them.

    2. Re:Stupidity or... ? by stuntpope · · Score: 1

      I chuckled at this Peoplesoft employee's comment, related to the bit about some employees preferring no job to a job with Oracle:

      "Peoplesoft had an easygoing, relaxed atmosphere. Oracle has an edgy, aggressive atmosphere that's not conducive to innovative production."

      And who's taking over whom? If Peoplesoft's "atmosphere" was so conducive, why aren't they taking over Oracle?

    3. Re:Stupidity or... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peoplesoft was too new of a company to build up enough to take over a monster like Oracle. In another 10 years, they might have.

    4. Re:Stupidity or... ? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      You've got a good point there. :) That being said, I could understand it if someone said "I quit because the atmosphere is aggressive and edgy and I don't want to work in an environment like that". But saying "I quit because it's Oracle now"? That's silly. :)

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    5. Re:Stupidity or... ? by MinotaurUK · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If Peoplesoft's "atmosphere" was so conducive, why aren't they taking over Oracle?

      The bottom line isn't the only (or even the best) way to judge the contribution of a company to society. Many of the places I've worked at have had a relaxed atmosphere, even if the actual rate of "work" or "productivity" was lower than in a competitor's more agressive business. I'd still rather work for the relaxed business. ;)

    6. Re:Stupidity or... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      >And who's taking over whom? If Peoplesoft's
      >"atmosphere" was so conducive, why aren't they
      >taking over Oracle?

      I take it way lower than that:

      If these people are so smart and so successful, then why are they in a position where OTHERS are making the strategic decisions for the company? They haven't developed their careers so well as to be sitting on the board, and they haven't made so much money as to be major stakeholders in either corporation. Others HAVE done so.

      If you aren't in a position to make strategic decisions, you aren't successful yet. So don't complain when it doesn't come down your way. It's really your own fault.

    7. Re:Stupidity or... ? by rve · · Score: 1

      Buying a competitor only to lay off the employees and discontinue the product is unethical. If my company did that, I would start looking for another job.
      In fact, I wouldn't even accept a company like that as a customer.

    8. Re:Stupidity or... ? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      I doubt being able to lay off employees was the only reason why Oracle bought PeopleSoft. They may be ruthless unethical greedy bastards, but that would be nonsensical.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    9. Re:Stupidity or... ? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hmmm. It may be just me, but that seems like a rather stupid attitude to me - do you really want to give up your job, your projects and everything just because your CEO suddenly has a different name?
      Usually internal reorganizations seem to have little or no effect. This is not one of those situations. What remains of PeopleSoft is going to be a totally different place than it used to be. These people didn't hire on to Oracle, why should they go along for the ride? If they stick around and hate it, they quit and get nothing. If they're part of this mass firing, they get a severance package and it is no reflection on them professionally.
    10. Re:Stupidity or... ? by Anon+E.+Muss · · Score: 1

      but that seems like a rather stupid attitude to me

      People laid off immediately after a merger may get a better severence package than people who stick around for a while and get canned later. It can make financial sense to get out early if you expect that you'll be dumped eventually.

      --
      The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
    11. Re:Stupidity or... ? by thenextpresident · · Score: 1

      But that's what they are quoted as saying. The "Oracle" comment was the journalist paraphrasing the quotes.

      --
      Jason Lotito
    12. Re:Stupidity or... ? by rve · · Score: 1

      They bought the customers and sales channels and removed a competitor. Oracle has no real interest in the products or the employees.

      It seems to be the norm nowadays. Where are the former Compaq and DEC products and employees now?

      Now only SAP and Oracle are left in that market segment, Peoplesoft and J.D. Edwards are gone.

    13. Re:Stupidity or... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked for PeopleSoft. I tried to get laid off.

      Now I work for Oracle. It will be interesting to see what happens in twelve months when the take over measures expire.

      As part of the former anti-takeover-defences most employees get a very sweet deal in case they are laid off. Oracle promised to honor all of these agreements.

      Two things:
      1. For many employees it pays to get laid off.
      2. Oracle is not as nasty as it seems.

    14. Re:Stupidity or... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I am a dev manager at Oracle.

      I'm looking forward to meeting and working with former PeopleSoft developers.

      If it's such an awful burden to be working at Oracle, please explain why myself and most of my employees stuck around at Oracle, even through the tech boom. Answer: we like working with each other, and we generally like where we work. Not perfect, but it's a good place to be.

      All these posters who clearly don't work at either company but can authoritatively state the situations and motives... now THAT gives me a chuckle.

  25. What happens to most of the IT staff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From first hand experince I know most IT employee will be kept on for a transitional period. During this time they will be regular Oracle employees. Most will also be receiving the same benefits and salary as they were when it was PeopleSoft. Don't know what's worse, to be fired with a severance package or to be on a transitional team where transitional employees will be mariginalized during the time they're there and most likely required to do all the grunt work of moving. Any thoughts?

  26. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable-Cl by criquet · · Score: 1

    I think I'm getting better service from Cingular over AT&T Wireless. Seems my Ameritrade account is slightly better than the old Datek. So I guess, yes, I have seen a few mergers improve service.

  27. They stated this would happen by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Last year, they stated that once purchased, they would dump the product and all but the top development people.

    The rest would be let go...

    While it sux to be them, and i know how they feel, at least they knew it was coming.. and should have planned ahead.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  28. To clear up some misperceptions-Obesity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm not saying that Oracle/Ellison is some lilly-white invisible-glad-hand or that the Oracle-Peoplesoft merger is a good thing...just saying that is the way it works in business and this wasn't really any surprise. This notion that "Wall Street loves job cuts" or "corporate America is so short-sighted" etc. doesn't survive that "well, what would you suggest instead?" test."

    Fewer mergers. Bigger isn't always better. Size isn't everything. A penny saved is a penny earned. Wear your galoshes.

  29. Optimist - 50% full, Pessimist - 50% empty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same article says "The company said it would retain more than 90% of Peoplesoft product development and product support staff." but the quote "The cuts will affect about 9% of the 55,000 staff of the combined companies." was chosen instead.

    That makes the submiter/editor not an alarmist nor a sensationalist, but a very subjective idiot who never took statistics. 9% is barely significant.

    1. Re:Optimist - 50% full, Pessimist - 50% empty... by ebuck · · Score: 1

      Errr...

      9% is a statistically significant difference, even on populations where the total count is unknown.

      That is, even if I don't know how much US currency exists in the world, I could easily notice if 9% of it went missing. (just an example).

      Most statistical measures consider canges of 5% to be statistically significant, and in cases where the measurements are cheap, accurate, and plentiful, that number can drop to 2.5% or even 1%.

  30. Step Three-"Does this make me look fat?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Any suggestion of Oracle attempting to create a monopoly through this move is nonsense -- their market share in enterprise applications is still a pimiple on SAP's ass, even when you combine the three companies now under the Oracle banner."

    Oh well. Now there's a selling point. "Use our products because we're the pimple, instead of the ass."

    1. Re:Step Three-"Does this make me look fat?" by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

      Have you ever used PeopleSoft? Talk about a boil on an ass.

  31. Re:The economy strikes again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't miss them if they don't go away.

  32. Companies by Flatline_hun · · Score: 0

    do not fire people, people do...

    --
    Yeah, free Ipod! He is innocent!
  33. So? by NewOrleansNed · · Score: 1

    These people all work for companies that make it easier for other companies to lay off their back office people and cast off their proprietary software (and developers).

    I suppose I should feel some level of sympathy for them, but then that would be like feeling bad for the priest who got caught with his pants around his ankles with an altar boy on his knees.

    I'll pass, but you keep on fighting that good fight, fellas.

  34. Wall Street-Mutual Funds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "If you could somehow *require* all stockholders to keep their stocks for at least a couple years before selling, then you'd see people thinking more "long-term". But things like "job cuts = profit!" are a result of shorter-term thinking. "This move means my stock is goin' up so it'll be ready to sell next month!""

    I think you're forgetting that a lot of stock is actually held in mutual funds. The one's doing the buying and selling aren't the actual people who own the stock, but intermediates. You want to complain? Complain about them. Just remember a lot of people have their retirement (IRAs, 401Ks, pension plans) invested in them.* Not just the "get rich quick" artist.

    *There's also those "living off of" such plans. Just as some "live off of" eBay.

    1. Re:Wall Street-Mutual Funds. by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      True... that's a point I hadn't really considered. But I think my initial statement would still tend to hold true for the "intermediates". If you're in charge of buying/selling stocks as part of a portfolio for peoples' retirement plans and you're bound by a rule that anything you buy can't be resold for 1-2 years, that's going to change the way you think about your purchasing decisions.

  35. peoplesoft by XO · · Score: 0

    Oracle apparently makes the most brilliant database software in the world.

    PeopleSoft makes.. uh.. what?

    Anyone know?

    I can't tell what any of their software actually does.

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    1. Re:peoplesoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They make web-based crashes. My school uses a lot of peoplesoft software to allow students to choose their courses next semester online, or check their tuition balance, or apply for jobs for the co-op process online, etc etc...unfortunately virtually every system they've contracted peoplesoft to develop is borderline unusable. If you get through a session without having to restart or being told the system isn't operational right now, it's noteworthy.

    2. Re:peoplesoft by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Ditto here. The University of Alberta switched to Peoplesoft for it's course management and discovered a number of things. 1) It's unstable and unreliable, 2) it has a *horrible* interface, both on the phone and on the web, 3) it doesn't actually do everything they want... I've heard anecdotes that the new system is actually less useful, functionally speaking, than the old one, and 4) it's extremely expensive as the project inevitably overran and cost millions more to deploy than Peoplesoft originally claimed.

      "the passing of a great company" indeed... *shakes head*

    3. Re:peoplesoft by duckpoopy · · Score: 2, Informative

      At the University of Florida, "PeopleSoft" has become the catch-all excuse for grad students and staff not getting paid, for payments coming from the wrong account, underpayment, etc. This transition has been going on for nearly a year now, and there is no end in sight. There is some problem with either documentation/training, there are too many institution having trouble with this software.

      --
      word.
    4. Re:peoplesoft by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Oracle makes the most twatty database software I've ever seen. Of that I can be certain.

    5. Re:peoplesoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for the AC but I work in a PS institution that is horribly politically protective of our Core Systems Rep so I won't put my name to this. I know at least three people will read it and assume I wrote it but to bad, 'no proof, no trouble'.

      Anyway what they make are badly mangled Database apps, principally in 4 areas, HR, Finance, Student Administration and massive Portal structures.

      A fairly consistent problem trough all their products is a slavish desire to backward compatability with Data and just simply bad data structures. For example I give you the hallowed PS_Personal_Data record. This record originally paid no consideration to normalisation over a decade ago and data fields have never been removed. There are name and address fields embedded in it, then they realised these could change so they added secondaries then they added address substructures for four different types of address before finally using a seperate related table for the information. Now any sensible company would look to migrate the data structures completely but not PS. They leave all the old structures because they do not wish to upset legacy code, both theirs and customers. So the customers and their own code needs to update numerous locations with the same or modified data just so a single 9 year old panel will continue working. The adjustment required and the efficiency gained by correctly shifting data structures would easily outweigh the effort adjusting code, especially if the upgrade doco was clear and accurate. The result is of course update code that fails to update everywhere that needs it, confusion over which data to use and massive peak loads on SQL servers during updates when 5 times as much code as is necessary needs to run.

      A personal pet pieve - Effective dating. They have had the ability to allow for Date/Time effective dating of changes for at least a decade. But no they use a hodgepodge of Dates, sequences and statuses to determine the currently effective record. Their trainers can't even see the problem and suggest such things as 'well just go in and make the change for tomorrow if todays date has already been used to make a change'. Of course that means your data does not match reality and in a University environment it is just stupid. Our record is 13 enrolment change requests for a single day by a student. So the final enrolment at the end of the day only registers as effective 13 days after today assuming there were no future changes to also take effect. Simply pathetic. The requirement to run multiple sub selects to determine the current record greatly impacts on code and DB efficiency when a simple date check could suffice. All this is kept in place to allow a very small subset of customers to stay with old and outmoded databases (those not allowing combined date time fields or even time fields.) and their not wanting to split their code base between database technologies.

      Mind you the work load involved in keeping the bloated, malformed product kicking, has seen a simultaneous specialisation and growth in out CIS section from 8 to over 25 workers. So I believe my postion has been made more secure in these troubled employment times.

    6. Re:peoplesoft by SunFan · · Score: 1

      At the University of Florida, "PeopleSoft" has become the catch-all excuse for grad students and staff not getting paid, for payments coming from the wrong account, underpayment, etc.

      Ahh, I love technology!

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  36. Re:The economy strikes again... by a8o · · Score: 1

    No, but the workers presumably had some value before the layoffs. By my understanding of the article (I haven't been following this very much) their work had been redistributed by the miracles of the market economy while they remained in a job. Then, when there was no longer any reason for their continued employment, we find ourselves in the present. It's all just a general trend and you can't fight it. Your job's probably on the way offshore too as we speak. Did you read this article?

  37. another single word by drbart · · Score: 1

    synergies!

  38. Pretty messed up by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    Couple of things I read recently:

    * Pink slips were sent via FedEx, apparantly. Nice & cold.
    * Local restaurants are already suffering - PeopleSoft put a *lot* of money into the local economy.

    1. Re:Pretty messed up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Local restaurants are already suffering - PeopleSoft put a *lot* of money into the local economy.

      The employees still eat. PeopleSoft did not pay the restaurants; their employees did. Don't be ridiculous.

    2. Re:Pretty messed up by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0
      The employees still eat. PeopleSoft did not pay the restaurants; their employees did.
      Yes, they eat at home. This generally costs less than at a restaurant. It is left as an exercise for the reader to work out 1) why it costs less and 2) why the employees might be choosing to spend less.
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    3. Re:Pretty messed up by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      No wonder you posted AC - what a stupid comment.

      Well, moron, I'll explain:

      PeopleSoft employees go to local restaurants. They put money into them. No employees to visit the restaurants? Less money going into them.

      Not ridiculous at all - simple economics. If you destroy one of the largest employers in a town, the other businesses in town will suffer too.

  39. So?-OSS or Bust. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "These people all work for companies that make it easier for other companies to lay off their back office people and cast off their proprietary software (and developers)."

    Now you know why some people feel the way they do about OSS.

  40. Let them eat sacred cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. They're running rampant through the land there.

    1. Re:Let them eat sacred cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, it works for the Catholics. (Eating the blood and body of Christ, that is).

    2. Re:Let them eat sacred cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's what Jesus tastes like, I want no part of Christianity.

  41. People soft... by OneFootIn · · Score: 3, Funny


    ...life HARD.

  42. Sounds familiar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me of what Comcast/G4 did to TechTV.

    May these two great companies rest in peace...

  43. It wasn't unexpected by chiph · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It wasn't unexpected -- Larry made an Oopsie and announced his plans for merging the two companies waaay before it was a done-deal. I expect the top talent bailed out almost immediately.

    So, the regular-Joe Peoplesoft employees knew it was coming, and at least could make other plans. Contrast that with the implosion at Enron, where the average worker had no idea that the company was on the precipice.

    Whether the local economy can support 5000 new job seekers is another question. I wouldn't doubt that some of the senior management will start new firms, employing some of those recently laid off. Others will have to uproot their lives, and move to where there's work.

    Chip H.

  44. Corrections... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, the title is inflammatory and just plain wrong: the percentage cuts have been the same on both the Oracle and Peoplesoft sides.

    Second, IT took cuts like everyone else. No area of either company was left untouched.

    This is a first hand account. I can't say more for fear of retributions.

    Oh, and opinions expressed here are entirely my own (I'm required to say that).

  45. Ellison and the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. by cabazorro · · Score: 2, Funny

    He just followed rules:

    Rule 052 "Never ask when you can take"

    Rule 058 "There is no substitute for success"

    Rule 146 "Competition and fair play are mutually exclusive"

    --
    - these are not the droids you are looking for -
  46. Quote is from Genghis Khan by frostman · · Score: 1

    In case anyone was wondering, that's apparently a Genghis Khan quote.

    Which means of course that I have to link to this.

    --

    This Like That - fun with words!

  47. too-many-peoplesoft by drwho · · Score: 1

    I can only hope that these newly unemployed start their own competition to Oracle.

  48. Layoffs by vertigo · · Score: 1

    Firing a lot of people this way can be risky for a company. It's good for short-time profit margins, but it also means a lot of highly skilled workers ready to join the competition. You rarely get something for nothing.

    1. Re:Layoffs by strelitsa · · Score: 1
      True. We had a big round of layoffs at my last job a couple of years ago, and the company has subsequently had its network cracked 3 times by "outside elements". One such effort destroyed 5 years worth of customer data as well as the backups. The email address of the manager responsible for most of the headcount reduction is on at least 10 pr0n mailing lists that I know of.

      (Word to the wise surviving IT staffer - change the locks on those back doors when your company reduces headcount).

      --
      No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
    2. Re:Layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oracle won't have to worry about those so called higly skilled PeopleCode developers joing any competitors. :)

  49. It's a fact... by Tempflux · · Score: 1

    It's a fact that job protection results in bigger unemployment, take a look at EU numbers.

    So stop whining you communist pussies.

    1. Re:It's a fact... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a simple man in a very complex world. Keep believing in one sentence answers to the capitalism abuses. Now, let's see when this happens to you. THAT is when we will measure your manhood. Until then, show some respect and "compassion".

      jj.

  50. Re:Starting back in 2002... get your facts right by y_a_duck · · Score: 2, Informative

    First, the initial hostile takeover announcement was made in June 2003, not 2002.

    Second, PeopleSoft did not freeze hiring; in fact, they were madly trying to hire developers right up to the date the merger was announced in December 2004. At which point no one would show up for interviews any longer.

    Third, Oracle announced long ago that they would likely lay off 6,000 people, so the current round is less than initially announced. Not that they won't lay off a few more as time goes by.

    Fourth, I'm sick and tired of hearing how such and such policy or practice is "sad." It isn't sad, it just is. That really says more about the writer than the situation. It means youre just complaining about a situation and actually have nothing to say.

    Me, I left PeopleSoft for a better job elsewhere rather than work for Oracle.

  51. What I would suggest... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    ...would be some goddamn ethics in business. This merger was forced upon 99% of the people at PeopleSoft and as per usual, only the .05% are going to come out ahead.

    While you are correct about actions Oracle has taken since the merger, the fact remains that a lot of people are going to suffer for it. The PS workers, customers, and other related stakeholders are all taken for Mr. Ellison's ride.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:What I would suggest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      This merger was forced upon 99% of the people at PeopleSoft and as per usual, only the .05% are going to come out ahead.

      Please, don't even use the word "forced upon". Those 99% shareholders were WILLFULLY offer to tender their shares. No one put a gun on their heads to sell.

      In fact, those 99% are making a profit. Oracle is paying a premium price.

  52. Re:oh the irony by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
    Seconded. Let the puns begin!

    PeopleSacked, PeopleShaft, PeopleLost...

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  53. More jobs to come... by ackatack · · Score: 1

    When the story of the planned merger initially broke, I figured that there would be mass layoffs and /. labed my post as flamebait. I would be willing to bet that Good Ole Larry actually plans several more layoffs over the next year. I know of several instances where he's bought up companies for their customers or IP and then gutted all that was good out of them. Looks like former PeopleSoft employees are next on the chopping block. This whole situation is going to weigh heavily on the already strained economy of the San Francisco Bay Area.

    1. Re:More jobs to come... by antirename · · Score: 1

      Damn, and I was thinking about moving there... the most expensive real estate in the country and I can't carry a gun. Real attractive. Time for the bay area to go pop.

  54. Burn PeopleSoft Burn!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You aren't the elitist company you used to be and now you will pay.

  55. This is exactly what I mean by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    In every situation, whether it's GM moving plants to Mexico, or Oracle's land grab, there is going to be major fallout with related stakeholders. Most will never be reported on because it's harder to see the corelation in a 10 second sound bite.

    Local economies are definately one of those stakeholders as well as suppliers to PeopleSoft. When Oracle bought PeopleSoft they had no intention of making their company twice as big. Instead, cuts are being made. It may be legal to do this and ruin a lot of lives, but is it ethical?

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  56. The rest of the firings can't come too soon by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    As someone who has to contend regularly with it, Peoplesoft is a horrible product. It makes all the worst mistakes of a freshman database project. No Ad hoc queries, data and design joined in horrible union, and perpetually behind delivery of working interfaces so that trainings are months removed from practice. The best thing Oracle could do is scrap the entire workforce and recode the monster from scratch (based on one of them newfangled relational databases) to meet the requirements of the various contracts this P(o)S is failing miserably to meet every day.

  57. MOD THIS UP! by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    And this is exactly why I will not work for corporations anymore. The deceipt and treachery was unbelievable.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  58. difference between theory and practice by dunkelfalke · · Score: 0, Troll

    there is an old joke here in germany.

    little fritz comes to his dad and asks him: dad, what's the difference between theory and practice?

    his father sais: go and ask your sister whether she would sleep with a stranger for a million euros.

    little fritz quickly goes asking. he returns and sais: yes, she would.

    now ask your mother the same thing, sais his father.

    little fritz goes asking and returns with the same answer.

    well my son, sais the father. here is the difference. in theory, we are rich. in practice we have two whores in the house.

    the morale of the story is: maybe you should get a life and learn the difference yourself.

    --
    Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    1. Re:difference between theory and practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or...maybe...just maybe...it was a joke.

  59. Fortunately... by rscrawford · · Score: 3, Informative

    My father-in-law, who was very worried about losing his job, will be able to stay. He's part of Oracle's new CRM division, which was part of the PeopleSoft deal.

    Oracle's new CRM software came from PeopleSoft; before that, it was Vantive; before that it was Systar; before that it was Scotch-Bonnet; and before that it was Mobius. My father-in-law has stayed at the same desk for fifteen years, and worked for six different companies, including Oracle. He's a real 90s kind of guy.

    --
    -- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
    1. Re:Fortunately... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, a real 90's guy is one that is out on the street.

      Your father in law was either very lucky, very smart, or both (most likely both since he survived 5 mergers).

      Well, he probably won't have to worry about mergers anymore, Oracle is too big for anyone to swallow. Oracle is frighteningly huge (which has its own issues for employees in many cases).

      Oracle needs to get people to keep buying its product, I know people who are still running Oracle 8 (!), but this point probably deserves to be in a different post or different story.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    2. Re:Fortunately... by myov · · Score: 1

      Buyouts are fun. Hired in August. Company bought out in September. Division sold to another company in November. 4 months, 3 companies, 2 payroll/admin systems, 1 job.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
  60. Naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "2. if you are good at what you are doing at work - you will not be fired"

    Perhaps your experience is limited to being fired for poor performance, but this article is about layoffs, not firings. The key distinction is that you get fired over your own poor performance, but you get laid off due to someone else's poor performance.

    I was given an award at a national sales meeting for being part of a team that won the largest government contract in company history. A few months later, I was laid off when the entire division closed down. Another division had failed badly in developing their next-generation product, and put the company in financial trouble.

    The screw-ups weren't fired. Their product was too important, too central to the company to be allowed to fail. So every other product group was sold off or shut down to keep the screw-ups working.

    The CEO and other executives eventually lost their jobs. But I lost mine first, through no fault of my own. It happens, and more than you acknowledge.

    It's not enough to be good at your job. Your job is in jeopardy unless everyone else that you work with, right on up to the CEO, is also doing a good job.

    I'm sure that some of the PeopleSoft accountants, lawyers, and HR people are better at their jobs than their Oracle equivalents. How many pink slips do you expect to see at Oracle?

  61. In other news... by jmb-d · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... fire hot.

    Does this surprise anyone at all? Was this move really to bolster Oracle's position in the market or to drive a competitor out of it?

    --
    In walking, just walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
    -- Yun-Men
  62. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable-Cl by ckaminski · · Score: 1

    Yup. Baybank to bankboston. Excellent merger, IMHO. Bankboston to FleetBoston however, was a massacre, partially because of the requirement to sell branches to Sovereign, causing all sorts of fuck-ups when customers found out their Fleet accounts now belonged to Sovereign, and they couldn't get paid because their HR wonks fucked up the direct deposit.

    Their policy of closing accounts when the balance reached $0.00 at midnight, causing me to miss getting paid, caused me to stop being a FleetBoston customer after 3 days.

    Remember, in any merger, the service being improved, is that that people are paying $millions for, not the service you and I, Joe American, Joe French are paying for...

  63. Please let them kill Vantive by BigCheese · · Score: 1

    Peoplesofts Vantive is the most worthless software I've ever used. I hope Oracle kills it off.

    --
    The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
    1. Re:Please let them kill Vantive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't agree with you more.

      I hope Oracle kill all PS products.

      Any application like PS trying to build a database neutral app is desitned to fail. Just image, PS even tries to write its own transaction without using the database's transaction feature.

      No more PeopleCode, PeopleTool, and PS CommonInterface.

  64. PeopleSoft's dark side. by JZlives · · Score: 0

    Every time I drive by the PeopleSoft building I yell out "PeopleSoft is made of PEOPLE!" To which I then get hit.

    --
    The RIAA fined my dog for barking too much like the Back Street Boys. They later came back and shot my dog for looking
  65. ObKOMPRESSOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People Soft ... percect for KRUSHING!

  66. Headline by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0

    Oracle Dumps on PeopleSoft employees, shurely?

    --
    1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
  67. revolution? by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

    1. Corporations are not a democracy.

    Nor should they be, necessarily. Corporations are driven by function (economic growth). So long as society views that as a core goal, it makes sense.

    2. Corporations do best for the shareholders.

    So they SAY. In reality, this is a very complicated issue and no two companies approach this the same way. "shareholder value" is only 20 years old as a mantra. Prior to that it was about "balance of stakeholder interests", which included employees and customers.

    What hasn't changed is that management still wields illegitimate power unless there's a strong board of directors to counter-balance it.

    3. The majority shareholders are mostly a small group of already wealthy people.

    No. Majority shareholders usually are institutional investors, i.e. employees of large firms that manage money for others, often thousands of others, in which your mutual funds or pension funds are invested.

    It's a tragic self re-inforcing loop: we want defined benefits pensions, pension funds demand performance, companies requrie short term gains, short term gains cause long term problems, cheating and other shenanigans become very tempting.

    4. Aquire companies with "leveraged synergies".

    Many mergers are silly. Others aren't. I'm not sure Oracle did a bad thing buying Peoplesoft.

    5. Fire redundant pawns. Feed jobs overseas.

    Since when did "Workers of the world unite!" mean "only in the USA"?

    6. Lower competition.

    Yeah, they do do this, and there needs to be a good watchdog to prevent it from going too far (unlike the current 'kiss the wrist of Microsoft' DOJ)

    7. Handfull of shareholders get even richer at the expense of thousands of families and the business es they patronize.

    There is no excuse to lay people off while paying obscene executive bonuses. But this is not so simple. Profits don't usually flow to shareholders, except thru dividends. Mostly they're re-invested. And a failing company does no one any good if they don't change.

    8. Most people and the local economy lose.

    At times, yes. If this is due to management incompetence and hubris, it's a tragic crime. However, it also is a side-effect of a market system -- when you introduce "creative destruction" to keeps things evolving, it tends to enthrone economics as the centre of life, instead of social ties and traditions. Assuming society wants ecnomic growth (and there's plenty of evidence that stasis or contraction is a bad thing), there's a trade-off between tradition and innovation. Again, a vigilant watchdog with teeth is needed to slow change down from time to time.

    /waits for the revolution
    Oh, I don't know. Revolutions tend to be bloody affairs that make things much worse for a really long time. The U.S. revolution in a way was an exception this, to some degree; the French revolution was an example of the horrors and opression that can result.

    --
    -Stu
  68. So was this as newsworthy... by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    when PeopleSoft did the same thing after buying JDEdwards? Don't make them seem like a poor victim when they are only drinking the same medicine they dished out and were still in the process of dishing out.

  69. eventually but not for a while... by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

    Peoplesoft 9 is going to be relased.
    Peoplesoft's product line will be supported through 2010.

    --
    -Stu
  70. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable-Cl by (negative+video) · · Score: 1
    I think I'm getting better service from Cingular over AT&T Wireless.
    Bad example. Not only did AT&T Wireless slowly flush themselves down the toilet for several years, they went and turned off their main business software before the replacement was debugged. Whoops.
  71. Re: Wall Street by vsprintf · · Score: 1

    If you could somehow *require* all stockholders to keep their stocks for at least a couple years before selling, then you'd see people thinking more "long-term". But things like "job cuts = profit!" are a result of shorter-term thinking. "This move means my stock is goin' up so it'll be ready to sell next month!"

    I completely agree. The long-term perspective has been lost, and it makes the market more volatile. Stock ownership was supposed to be an investment and involvement with a company - not a one-night stand. The AC mentioned mutual funds, but they should be held to the same restrictions: no short-term deals. Invest in solid companies for the long term.

  72. At a nearby restaurant last night... by Leomania · · Score: 1

    My wife and I went to Mistral last night -- a restaurant literally around the corner from the Oracle campus in Redwood Shores. As we waited for our table near the bar, a man walks up and asks, "Do you two work for Oracle?" We told him no, we didn't. He went on to explain that he was a reporter who had been asked to stop by and see if he could get any reaction from any Oracle employees he could find. He had asked someone on the restaurant staff how many of the customers were usually from Oracle on a Friday, and was told "Oh, about 80%." He said he had asked a dozen people thus far and no one had admitted to being an Oracle employee.

    I don't know about that 80% figure, it seems high to me, but I would guess that not a lot of people felt like their usual night out on the town after that news was announced.

    I'm so glad the merger happened, it is obviously such a good thing for the people who have worked so hard to make the company what it is today. Er, not...

    - Leo

    --
    You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
  73. not the only possibilities by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    A third possibility, and perhaps the most common, is that company A wants to purchase a large portion of company B, but thinks some of it is useless. So they buy company B, keep the parts they like, and get rid of the rest. There can be any number of reasons for this: One of the more common is that company B's strategists had been making speculative entries into businesses outside their core business, and company A's strategists think these were a bad idea and so cancel them.

    Is it that hard to believe that Oracle might have really wanted 80% of Peoplesoft's business, but thought 20% of it was dead weight? With different management cultures and outlook, it's very unlikely that company A will buy company B and agree that 100% of its activities are exactly in keeping with what they want to do.

  74. 5,000 more people now wish they'd had a UNION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how does America benefit from this merger? Will it result in better products? better technology? more employment? Will either PeopleSoft or Oracle CUSTOMERS be better off?

    PHUCK NO.

    All it does is benefit a few deal-makers and corporate bosses at the top.

    If PeopleSoft employees would have had a decent union looking out for them they could have probably blocked the sale and even if it went through they could have protected their jobs.

    But if you listen to the sweaty-palm AM radio listening dittohead arsewipes they'll tell ya it's somehow wrong for ordinary working people to band together and look out for their own interests.

    In this world the rewards go only to the strong... it's time for workers to realize that individually they are weak, collectively they can be strong.

    Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains.

  75. So long Peoplesoft by Wansu · · Score: 1



    "We're mourning the passing of a great company,"


    Yep. Ellison bought Peoplesoft to get rid of competition. Peoplesoft users will be left high and dry as Peoplesoft products and employees are jettisoned.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
  76. Dumps! Dumps? 9% by Ozric · · Score: 1

    9% is a DUMP? This must be that "Fuzzy Math"! Can you say Agenda? I am sure you can. Looks like somebody has some "issues" with Oracle.

  77. proportion by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree that Ellison is as autocratic as a Chinese emperor (including modern "Party Chairmen"). But your tsunami example is bad. "China", the government and the country, doesn;t have enough money to provide basic needs to millions of its own people - for them, it's a tsunami over the horizon with every sunrise. This is a perpetual crisis at the same scale, or larger, than the tsunami: hundreds of thousands of deaths, and millions without adequate shelter, medicine or food to survive. Every day - all the time, with the casualties matching probably in a month (or even a week) what which arrived by tsunami in an hour - but which won't return for years, decades, centuries. While the US, Japan, Australia and the rest have vast billions of "discretionary" money available. Which we spend on what we see on TV, another factor which doesn't influence most Chinese.

    Taiwan has little excuse for their stinginess, nor truly does the "special zone" of Hong Kong - their capitalist greed seems clear from the numbers. But the actual spending of the aid money is also controlling the donations. Much is going to the Indonesian military, which is an enemy of "China" (collectively), but an ally of the US, Japan and Australia. Of course there are strings attached by "our" governments, mostly relating to the suppression of Indonesian populations in the oil/gas rich Aceh region. The other regions in Thailand and even Sri Lanka have similar political/military polarization. Norway, a major oil producer, no doubt has interests along those same lines, though that country's global donations in general lead all nations in what should be a competition to fund sustainable global development.

    So there's no barbarism going down. Except, I note, in your racist attitude towards Chinese Americans. Lots of them in Silicon Valley, so a SV company will inevitably become like China, the country most of them fled at personal sacrifice? Your comparison of Oracle's labor policies to China's really is an insult to the term "utter brutality". China tortures workers who complain, or threaten to organize; Oracle at worst browbeats them or doesn't renew their contract, leaving them free (the essential difference) to find another $100K:y job up the street.

    Overall, you need a sense of proportion. Your oversimplifications betray the kind of severe error that any thinking based on racism will generate. Ellison is something of a Genghis Khan, but the Chinese "communist" mafia is not a metaphorical khanate, but nearly indistinguishable from their historical predecessors. Neither are particularly worthwhile, but you'll have a hard time finding people sympathetic to your anger when you've got nothing additional to offer.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  78. Dumping.. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    PS 9 is already in the works. Wont be any new products. To me that is a 'dump'.

    Last i heard it was 2013 for support. Support is only so they can migrate people over to pure Oracle products..

    The PS line is still being dropped as a viable product. At least how i define it..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  79. Good Riddance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know I'm speaking for almost all of my schoolmates when I says PeopleSoft makes some of the crappest application softwares ever! Our university decided to pay millions to PeopleSoft for web-based software to manage students' academic, financial, and co-op processes. Well, worst UI design ever plus daily down time of the system for maintainence!

    This is a disgrace to a school that pride on its math and engineering programs. Hiring a small group of co-op students from the school itself would have been the better (and cheaper) choice.

    Die PeopleSoft die!!!!

    1. Re:Good Riddance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait 'till you see how much crappier Oracle's applications are.

  80. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable-Cl by Fishstick · · Score: 1

    Really? What software was this?

    I'm not challenging you, I really want to know. I work for one of the companies that provides outsourced customer care and billing for them and I'm interested to find out what you're talking about. We're likely going to be one of the providers that gets phased out over the next couple years as they consolidate their operations, and I'm curious to know what business software replacement you're talking about.

    --

    There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
    Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  81. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable-Cl by (negative+video) · · Score: 1

    Sorry. I tried to dig up the details earlier but gave up. Aha! A web search for "AT&T wireless CRM" turns up this article in CIO magazine that says it was a horribly botched upgrade of their CRM system (viciously customized Siebel) combined with a Federal deadline for number portability. They had trouble from December 2003 through February 2004, lost many thousands of customers, were for a time unable to sign up new customers, were completely offline for a whole week, and lost $100M. HTH.

  82. Much simpler than that by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    No, the reality is not that stockholders DON'T ever talk to the company, they CANNOT talk to the company.

    People at large companies are expressly forbidden to tell reporters or shareholders anything, only to defer them to PR.

    So what does that leave an investor with? Well, they can deduce from company communications what they are up to in a layoff. If they are lucky they may have a friend on the inside who can give them an (always biased) point of view of why the layoffs really occurred, and how many good people are out instead of just deadwood.

    But since most investors cannot get that, what they are left with is just the knowledge the company now spends $X per year on employees. Subtract the compensation packages for those leaving, and you have a new annual profit projection for the company which is better - and thus leads to a positive correction in the share price.

    Always though this increase is temporary and tempered by the results the company actually achieves following a layoff. If they post bad numbers investors can get might spooked and head for the hills, as it is a sign they let go of the wrong people!

    I mean, let's say you are an investor at Oracle - just HOW would you "talk to the company"?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Much simpler than that by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

      Hey can I get born in a different universe now? One that makes sense?

      I fail to see how this allows for fairness? Makes me think of that act congress couldn't read but everyone had vote on.

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
  83. An island of sense in a sea of bashing by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    That's exactly what I see, just eliminating the people doing the same jobs as people Oracle already has.

    Wake me if they start laying off PeopleSoft's employees doing work or getting sales through - that's when you know there is going to be real trouble.

    Letting go of redundant personnel after a merger is not news, it's just an expectation.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  84. "resources" go now, hopefully code will follow by oliphaunt · · Score: 1

    *disclaimer* my company bought some version of the peoplesoft HR web page crap. I think it sucks, becuase (1)it's broken a lot, and (2)our HR people use it as an excuse for why they can't be bothered to do their jobs anymore. */disclaimer*

    I don't want to be the wet blanket on the roast-Larry party here, but I have to ask: has anyone actually USED the PeopleSoft product? I'm not asking if you've seen a demo, or if you dated some dumb chick from Dublin who worked on their customer service team. Have you USED it?

    it's TERRIBLE.

    My company bought a license last spring. Yes, it was after the initial offer. No, nobody seemed to be worried that Larry has more money than God and always gets what he wants. Yes , I thought it was a short-sighted and poorly qualified decision. No, nobody asked me.

    From a user's perspective, it's never worked right. We bought a whole bunch of shit from them, including payroll, timesheets, forms administration, approvals workflow, etc etc etc. Payroll is the only part that sort of works correctly, 11 months after the purchase was announced.

    oddly, last week I had a problem with my timesheet, so I opened a support ticket. The technical guy assigned to support the peeholesoft application called me, and told me that everyone in the company was having the same problem, and that nobody from PS would return his phone calls.

    to the people who still work at the PS HQ in Dublin: steal stuff now, becuase in a week, there won't be anything good left. To the Oracle folks supervising the "merger:" do the world a favor and fire everyone now, and just pretend that Peoplesoft never existed. Give away copies of 9i or 12i or whatever, those poor customers you just bought have suffered enough.

    --




    Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
  85. Fairness by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Companies are not always (or even often) fair I'll readily admit, but nothing in the process I described disallows fairness.

    I would hope Oracle is being generous with severance packages. Being laid off is not necessarily bad, I know people who have used it to take several months off and re-think how they wanted to work.

    I'm just not sure I see these particular layoffs in and of themselves as being unfair, it's almost like calling a chemical reaction unfair. Especially software people should understand something like this at a high level, a system with duplicate elements is inefficient and companies are really refined sets of common business processes. Of course there are people involved in these "components" but what you must realize is that while there are people at the other end too (like Elllison) he doesn't really have much of a choice either. Could he really keep those people? Perhaps, but what happens in ten years when the money is sucked out of Oracle by extra staff he cannot use and he has to close the whole company? Companies have to have some reflexes that help with survival.

    Such actions are just part of what businesses do - the element of fairness I think comes into play in the mechanics of how actions are actually implemented, where the humans at the top level can make choices. And the details of that we do not know yet. But it can be fair, and reasonable, if the company tries. And sometimes they do try (though often it seems they do not).

    So you do live in a universe that contains fairness, but you must try and seek it out and protect it. If you are at a company like Peoplesoft and someone like Oracle is trying to take you over, then you need to activate your part of that "at-will" employment option and start looking for somewhere else to be - or at least beef up savings to last through a future search!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  86. Re: Wall Street by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you could somehow *require* all stockholders to keep their stocks for at least a couple years before selling, then you'd see people thinking more "long-term". But things like "job cuts = profit!" are a result of shorter-term thinking. "This move means my stock is goin' up so it'll be ready to sell next month!"

    There's a little bit of that in how the capital gains taxes is setup.

    Hold a stock for under a year, and your profit ("capital gains") is taxed as regular income (28%, 33% or 38%-- depending on your tax bracket). Hold it for longer than a year and you are taxed at 20% (and hope there's no AMT involved). I think that's how it goes.

    Prohibiting holding of a stock for a short time is a bit extreme when you could use tax policy as a tool to encourage holding a stock for the long term. One can adjust some figures here or even create a lower tax rate for stocks sold after being held for N years.

    Of course, whether we can make this sort of change in todays political climate is a much different matter.

    -cmh

  87. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable-Cl by Fishstick · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, the LNP debacle. I did hear about this now that you mention it. Thanks for the reply.

    Siebel is a piece of shit, from what I hear. AWS took away the number management piece from us when they implemented LNP and I did hear they had major failures. By that time, I had moved out of that area of the business supporting that customer directly, so I didn't get to experience any of the fallout first-hand.

    It will be interesting to see what Cingular does to pull the former AWS' collective heads out of their asses. You are correct, IMO -- they have been doing a slow circle around the drainhole for years.

    --

    There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
    Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  88. Ha, ha, ha. Ha. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Poor /.ers

    The naivite of some around here is stagering. If you truly believe that dealer closers cloe those millions of follars deals do on the basis of a few fucking football tickets, then you are more naive than most.

    And if you think a fscking programmer (he, like you most likely) can grasp the complexities of such transactions then you are beyond hope.

    You are watching too many Hollywood movies, in those the manager is always bad, ignorant and greedy and the geek in the company's basement is all knowing and can save the world if he has a macintosh.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  89. If you don't like capitalism... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... be prepared to give up your cozy lifestyle.

    Countries without capitalistic mechanisms to allocate wealth are normally shitholes.

    You are welcome if you want something like that, but ton't expect too many enthusiatic backers.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  90. I don't know who you work for.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... but in any decent sized company your are drilled about not giving interviews to the media unless your are cleared by the company.

    This is standard practice, so frankly I don;t see why you are making it sound like something so extraordinary.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:I don't know who you work for.... by Leomania · · Score: 1

      This is way too late, you won't see it, but I'll reply just the same.

      This wouldn't have been a case of "giving an interview", it would be someone saying "yeah, I know someone who got canned today." Don't be so serious.

      Picture this... your CEO decides he wants to buy another company. It takes a long time and there's plenty of people unhappy about it, but he finally prevails. He spends a LOT of money doing it. He then announces 5000 people are going to be laid off as a direct result of this purchase.

      On my planet people get angry about stuff like that. They start talking about their feelings, someone they know who got axed... and at a watering hole within spitting distance of the corporate headquarters, it's a likely bet that some of them would talk to a reporter.

      And as a note, I wasn't attempting to make it "sound like something so extraordinary". It was probably of minor interest, but I had a tiny shred of information to share so I did. Sorry it didn't measure up for you.

      - Leo

      --
      You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
  91. So... How often do you beat your wife? by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    Don't be such an absolutist ass. Where did you get my being against capitalism from my last post?

    Capitalism unrestrained is just as bad as overregulation. I'm talking about balance - the kind of balance where the vast majority don't get completely screwed over, not a total equalization of accumulated wealth.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  92. Re: Wall Street by SunFan · · Score: 1

    A company's stock simply moves up or down based on the "knee jerk reactions" of the majority of people holding shares when anything changes in the company.

    You mistyped "people". You meant "institutions". If multiple institutions decide to dump a stock, watch out!

    --
    -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  93. Good riddance by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    Perhaps this firing will avoid a class action suit from PeopleSoft vict^H^H^H^Hcustomers. Many institutions have pumped money into Peoplesoft until their budgets were empty, without getting in sight of a working system. Others haven't yet run out of money.

    PeopleSoft employees have made the mess the customers are stuck with today. The PeopleSoft staff ought to be tagged so that others can avoid hiring them.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.