Slashdot Mirror


Oregon Sues Oracle For "Abysmal" Healthcare Website

SpzToid (869795) writes The state of Oregon sued Oracle America Inc. and six of its top executives Friday, accusing the software giant of fraud for failing to deliver a working website for the Affordable Care Act program. The 126-page lawsuit claims Oracle has committed fraud, lies, and "a pattern of activity that has cost the State and Cover Oregon hundreds of millions of dollars". "Not only were Oracle's claims lies, Oracle's work was abysmal", the lawsuit said. Oregon paid Oracle about $240.3 million for a system that never worked, the suit said. "Today's lawsuit clearly explains how egregiously Oracle has disserved Oregonians and our state agencies", said Oregon Atty. Gen. Ellen Rosenblum in a written statement. "Over the course of our investigation, it became abundantly clear that Oracle repeatedly lied and defrauded the state. Through this legal action, we intend to make our state whole and make sure taxpayers aren't left holding the bag."

Oregon's suit alleges that Oracle, the largest tech contractor working on the website, falsely convinced officials to buy "hundreds of millions of dollars of Oracle products and services that failed to perform as promised." It is seeking $200 million in damages. Oracle issued a statement saying the suit "is a desperate attempt to deflect blame from Cover Oregon and the governor for their failures to manage a complex IT project. The complaint is a fictional account of the Oregon Healthcare Project."

212 comments

  1. *nelson laugh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    HAHA!
    I hope they get it good... bastards.

  2. Because they could't sue the Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Place the realm blame where it belongs and leave Oracle alone.

    1. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. We're so sorry for this obvious shakedown, Oracle. /s

    2. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      "What procedure was used to select Oracle on the market of solution vendors?"

      "Well, their name kind of starts like our name, so we thought they'd be the best for us. We've also heard there's a lot of trees in their software. We like trees."

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A big part of the blame should go to Oregon for trying to start with a big, complex site. Of all the states that implement Obamacare Insurance Exchanges, Oregon's is widely considered the worst, after spending $240M. Kentucky's is widely considered the best. It was ready on day one, and has run without major problems since. Kentucky spent about $8M, or 3% of what Oregon spent. Software development works best with a small, lean team of good developers. Before embarking on this project, the Oregon governor should have read The Mythical Man Month.

    4. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Place the realm blame where it belongs and leave Oracle alone.

      Who? Lotus Notes? Bill Gates? Nixon?

      This is classic application of Hanlon's Razor: Never ascribe to malice that which can be best explained by incompetence.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oracle + Government = Ridiculously Overpriced Shit. It's that simple.

    6. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Troll

      A big part of the blame should go to the Democrats in Congress that passed the law requiring the site to begin with.

      Oracle should explain that their software accurately depicts the state of the law. It may be an adequate defense.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by rbrander · · Score: 1

      I've got a hunch you typed that statement by hitting these keys:

      F1 in Congress that passed the law to begin with.

    8. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      A big part of the blame should go to the Democrats in Congress that passed the law requiring the site to begin with.

      Except that the site was NOT required. Most states did NOT implement their own site, and either default to the federal site or formed a regional partnership.

    9. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by sjames · · Score: 0

      A big part of the blame should go to the failed market and its greedy occupants that cause $1 worth of chemicals to cost more than many people make in a year.

    10. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 2

      Place the realm blame where it belongs and leave Oracle alone.

      Who? Lotus Notes? Bill Gates? Nixon?

      Nixon. I say we blame Nixon. After all, he was the first sitting president to propose national health care (and of all ironies, Ted Kennedy helped spike it.)

    11. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by gtall · · Score: 1

      hmmmm...suppose you spend $1 Billion to develop a new drug...just about $1 worth of chemicals per pill. How much are you going to sell it for? Care to make back your investment? Overhead for factories to make it? Promotion so that doctors know about it? Health care for your employees? A retirement plan for your employees?

      The drug companies are a bunch of greedy suits. However, attempting to simplify the problem using your reasoning doesn't help anyone.

    12. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about colchicine? It cost about $8/month. Then, one company did a million dollar study, generally considered to have contributed nothing to medical knowledge, and so got temporary exclusivity from the FDA and suddenly it costs $450 for the same thing.

      The $1 cost BTW was already covering the factory, employees, etc. The rest is gravy and marketing.

      Much of the research is taken care of by universities operating under a federal grant. By all rights, that research belongs to the people already.

      Based on the immensity of the pharmaceutical companies, they aren't exactly losing money.

    13. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, share some blame, that's fine. But that doesn't make Oracle suddenly innocent. Fraud is still fraud, even if you cheat someone dumb.

    14. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, Kaiser. Where have I heard that name before? Oh, I remember: in the Nixon tapes when he's discussing HMO's, which in turn created the largest rise in healthcare costs in the entire history of the United States!

      Well now that there is sure an unbiased source, yesiree Bob!

    15. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave notes out of it! After work changed from lotus notes to office 365 things got worse so the blame clearly lies with microsoft!

    16. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by lucm · · Score: 1

      A big part of the blame should go to the Democrats in Congress that passed the law requiring the site to begin with.

      Except that the site was NOT required. Most states did NOT implement their own site, and either default to the federal site or formed a regional partnership.

      So they blew millions on a lousy website instead of forcing their citizen to use the lousy website on which the federal government blew millions. I'm sure the Oregon people are happy to have paid twice for the same garbage.

      Meanwhile Oracle's stock is up almost 1/3 this year. At least some people made money with this healthcare thing.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    17. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. If they hadn't tried to do this online the conservatives would be complaining that things weren't online and high tech enough. There's absolutely no winning with people like that.

    18. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by Quasimodem · · Score: 2

      Right. Most people saved money with that ACA healthcare thing.

    19. Re: Because they could't sue the Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea. They could operate as non profits! There is no reason for any part of healthcare to make billions in profit every year.

      Plenty of people can still be paid extremely well without charging absolutely absurd sums of money for drugs.

      Healthcare should have never been allowed to become for profit. Its a basic human right. Plenty of people work hard and make little and can't afford care. How does that make sense in 2014 in what's supposed to be the best nation on earth?

      Fuck that.

    20. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      How about colchicine? It cost about $8/month. Then, one company did a million dollar study, generally considered to have contributed nothing to medical knowledge, and so got temporary exclusivity from the FDA and suddenly it costs $450 for the same thing.

      I guess you consider dosage and drug interaction information to be overrated? You know that neglecting that sort of thing kills people?

      Do you want your medicine based on modern science, or the "wisdom" of the ancient Greeks and various hill people?

      FDA approval

      Oral colchicine had been used for many years as an unapproved drug with no prescribing information, dosage recommendations, or drug interaction warnings approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).[8] On July 30, 2009 the FDA approved colchicine as a monotherapy for the treatment of three different indications (familial Mediterranean fever, acute gout flares, and for the prophylaxis of gout flares[8]), and gave URL Pharma a three-year marketing exclusivity agreement[9] in exchange for URL Pharma doing 17 new studies and investing $100 million into the product, of which $45 million went to the FDA for the application fee. URL Pharma raised the price from $0.09 per tablet to $4.85, and the FDA removed the older unapproved colchicine from the market in October 2010 both in oral and IV form, but gave pharmacies the opportunity to buy up the older unapproved colchicine.[10] Colchicine in combination with probenecid has been FDA approved prior to 1982.[9

      Based on the immensity of the pharmaceutical companies, they aren't exactly losing money.

      And some people think thriving businesses can lose money on every sale but make it up "in volume."

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    21. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Except that the site was NOT required. Most states did NOT implement their own site, and either default to the federal site or formed a regional partnership.

      In order to qualify legally for the subsidies under the law each state had to set up its own exchange. If the state is going to have an exchange then people need to have a way to access it. How are you going to do that without a web site? Snail mail? Telephone? Currier?

      Obamacare’s Architect Agreed That Only State Exchanges Could Offer Subsidies

      There are many states where people are not legally eligible for subsidies. They have been illegally receiving them, but they shouldn't count on that to last..

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    22. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      A big part of the blame should go to the failed market and its greedy occupants that cause $1 worth of chemicals to cost more than many people make in a year.

      A big part of the problem discussing this is clueless people that assign no cost or value to the development and maintenance of scientific and industrial facilities to support investigation of new drugs, and the many person-years of scientific research to identify new drugs, develop the means to economically manufacture them, test them to ensure that they are safe and effective, deal with the growing government bureaucracy, get them to market, and deal with the court cases from the outliers and mistakes.

      How about this - we have two drug markets that you can sign up for. One drug market is pretty much as things are today, but maybe with a bit less regulation. The other drug market is one in which anyone that can scrape $1 of chemicals into a pouch and get it to drug stores can sell it for whatever they think it is good for. Maybe they could honor that second market name with a name: patent medicine.

      Which will you be signing up for?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    23. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      suppose you spend $1 Billion to develop a new drug...just about $1 worth of chemicals per pill. How much are you going to sell it for?

      Perhaps we should have a system for funding drug development in some way other than per-pill prices.

      If 10,000 people have a deadly disease that can be cured with one pill, and one of them is Bill Gates and the rest are poor, then you could maximize profits by charging a billion dollars for the pill, and letting the other 9,999 people die. That is clearly a market failure. This is an extreme example, but is similar in principle to how medicine is actually priced.

    24. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by sjames · · Score: 1

      Considering that doctors have been successfully and safely using colchicine since before there was an FDA, and continued to do so throughout it's existence under the grandfather clause based on well established guidelines, No, I was not and am not particularly interested in the FDA's rubber stamp. Particularly not a rubber stamp that would cost each and every individual prescribed thousands a year.

      The studies really didn't do any more than provide that rubber stamp. They revealed nothing that hadn't already been known for decades, they caused no changes in the use or safety of the drug.

      They might as well have flushed the money down the toilet.

    25. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the site was NOT required. Most states did NOT implement their own site,

      Under the Obamacare law, if a state set up their own site, then the state's residents got big federal subsidies to buy insurance, which is pretty good motivation for the state to set up a site. FREE MONEY!

      BUT, the Obama administration then decided to give the subsidies to everyone, which is clearly against the law passed by Congress.

      Litigation is in progress: http://www.washingtontimes.com...

      Obama seems to think he can spend money as he sees fit, contrary to law. Congress decides spending & passes the budget, not the President.

    26. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure that interactions with drugs created or repurposed in the recent past don't have a history going back millennia.

      The drug ritonavir, which is used to treat AIDs, for example, was only approved in 1996 and it apparently has an interaction with colchicine. The shamans aren't going to be a help with learning that.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    27. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by sjames · · Score: 2

      That is no good reason to claw back a long time generic drug. Instead, the producer of the new combination drug should deal with that.

      Then there's the people who won't be able to afford any combination of either drug now and will be forced to do without or make do with crocus tea (Hellllloooooooooo shaman!) rather than a well controlled manufactured drug.

      Of course, for those who can afford it, it's physicians, not shaman who give them the drugs and watch for side effects and interactions. In fact, that's how most interactions are discovered.

      Or, for more fun, look at gabapentin vs pregabalin. The former is a generic, the latter is not. There is little appreciable difference except for price.

      I'm fine with regulation, but it needs to make sense.

    28. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's why there needs to be a reasonable middle ground. It's one thing if that $1 of chemicals costs $5 or $10 inb the capsule. It's quite another if it costs $32,000.

    29. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Obama seems to think he can spend money as he sees fit, contrary to law. Congress decides spending & passes the budget, not the President.

      Then reality has shown him to be correct. Rules are enforced on the ruled by the rulers. Rulers don't enforce rules on themselves. Rules are for the peasants.

    30. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      It's costs that much because men with guns prevent competition from others who would provide those chemicals at a lower cost.

      When I'm free to purchase medical care from anyone willing to provide it, it will be time to talk about market failure in health care. Until then, the medical mafia is just another shakedown operation enabled by government guns.

      Health care is cheap. Government control is expensive.

    31. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by buybuydandavis · · Score: 2

      and so got temporary exclusivity from the FDA

      It's the guns of the government that caused the problem. When the government no longer enforces medical monopolies, we'll stop paying monopoly prices.

    32. Re: Because they could't sue the Government by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Healthcare should have never been allowed to become for profit.

      You win the Thug of the Day award. Yes, people shouldn't be *allowed* to exchange value for value based on their own preferences. The government should step in and shoot them. Yay! What a Brave New World!

    33. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by sjames · · Score: 1

      Government and regulations have their place, but the FDA is well off the deep end. They seem to be all about expanding their power base and seem consider their primary purpose to be more of a nuisance than a reason to be. I notice the agency pocketed $45 million in the colchicine case, all of which will come out of the hides of gout sufferers.

    34. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by sjames · · Score: 1

      The free market won't work either. The FDA came in to being when the free market gave us a children's sulfa elixir filled with anti-freeze.

      Note though that it's not just the FDA. Generic drugs, various medical devices and supplies are all vastly over-priced right down to crutches and tongue depressors.

      Then there's the use of expensive still patented drugs in cases where equally good generics are just as usable at a tenth the price. That's not caused by an excess of regulation.

    35. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by HiThere · · Score: 1

      In that case I have to agree with you. That doesn't make the general argument valid, though. You are arguing that because a known generic with known characteristics is safe, an unknown drug should also be allowed. I've got to disagree.

      OTOH, you can point to a multitude of cases where the system of regulations was abused. And in many cases I'll say, yes, that was clearly abuse. But your original statement vastly oversimplifies the case.

      FWIW, many drugs have been re-licensed by removing a compbination of some drug with asprin, and replacing it with the same drug combined with acetiminophin. That means the new drug doesn't work as well for me, as I don't get much relief from acetiminophin, but the older formulation is no longer available. I consider THAT abuse of the system, even though they can cite new studies that qualify the new formulation. I'm rather convinced that they made the change purely to maintain the non-generic status of their drug. This, to me, is clearly abuse of the system, even though the new formulation may be as effective for many people.

      So I'm not defending the current system, which I consider quite abused. (I also have my doubts about ANY system where the people that approve drugs as safe, or disapprove them as unsafe, will be the people who benefit by selling them.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    36. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      .... and will be forced to do without or make do with crocus tea (Hellllloooooooooo shaman!) rather than a well controlled manufactured drug.

      That's kind of the point - there was no "well controlled manufactured drug" since there was no standard dosage.

      Oral colchicine had been used for many years as an unapproved drug with no prescribing information, dosage recommendations, or drug interaction warnings -- FDA approval

      .

      And it has some dangerous potential side-effects beyond simple drug interaction.

      Without dosage and interaction information you're in the supplement world.

      Dangerous supplements

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    37. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by sjames · · Score: 1, Informative

      You conveniently clipped that quote, allow me to fill it in:

      Oral colchicine had been used for many years as an unapproved drug with no prescribing information, dosage recommendations, or drug interaction warnings approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

      All those things existed, the FDA just hadn't whacked them with it's $45million approval stamp.

      The rest of the argument sort of falls apart there.

      Unlike the supplements, colchicine was regulated for purity and accurate dosing and is prescribed by a physician following long-standing medical guidelines and monitored.

      However, I'm going to challenge the article on supplements a bit. I have NEVER seen aconite (aka monks hood) for sale ANYWHERE. It hasn't been used in medicine (folk or otherwise) in the west for nearly a century. That's why, in spite of being a powerful and dangerous poison, you don't read about deaths from it. If you see it listed somewhere, read closely and you'll see it's in homeopathic form (read no actual aconite present).

      Colloidial silver can turn you bluish grey if you use way too much for way too long. Try the same overdose with tylenol and you'll be dead in a week.

      But my advice for the silver is don't take it internally. Externally unless in the eyes, use iodine.

      I have never suffered any ill effects with ephedra, but then I use a sensible dose intermittently for flu-like symptoms, not in mega doses to lose weight or to pretend I don't need sleep. The others are about as likely to cause harm. Note how they didn't compare the 'dirty dozen' to the figures fro the 12 most dangerous FDA approved drugs.

      You might guess from that that there IS dosing and interactionb information out there. They might print it on the bottles if the FDA wouldn't scream 'you didn't say mother may I" and shut them down for selling a drug.

      The manufacturers of the selenium supplement in your link SHOULD be sanctioned for providing a dose well off from that indicated on the label. Note that it has happened with FDA approved drugs as well.

    38. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by sjames · · Score: 1

      Did you ever wonder why nobody else makes the old formulation when it goes generic? It;s because the holder of the exclusive on the new formulation pays them not to.

      The endless reformulations that offer no actual patient benefit plus the payoffs very well supports my claim that the extreme cost of drugs is greed driven rather than being intrinsic.

    39. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by DworkinLV · · Score: 2

      Both Gabapentin and Pregabalin are Generics. Different drugs. The brand name for Pregabain is Lyrica. Pregabalin is (S)-3-(aminomethyl)-5-methylhexanoic acid, while Gabapentin is 2-[1-(aminomethyl)cyclohexyl]acetic acid. Been on both, side effects for the Lyrica are hugely different than Gabapentin.

      --
      Browsing without an adblocker is like fucking without a condom - Mal-2
    40. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      It's public record who passed the law. The Democrats own that law, lock, stock, and barrel, for better or worse.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    41. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      Hmm, Kaiser. Where have I heard that name before? Oh, I remember: in the Nixon tapes when he's discussing HMO's, which in turn created the largest rise in healthcare costs in the entire history of the United States! Well now that there is sure an unbiased source, yesiree Bob!

      An Anonymous Coward does an ad hominem attack without bothering to see if his nay saying has any credibility. How useful.

      You could have done a simple Google search

    42. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by MisterToad · · Score: 1

      Is this the same Oregon political organization that brought us the Sellwood Bridge - - - - one of the biggest engineering fiascoes I have ever witnessed!

      --
      Dick
    43. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by sjames · · Score: 1

      Except in Canada, Pregabalin won't be a generic for several years. Until then it is much more expensive. It has also been the subject of illegal off-label promotion.

      They do have differing side effects and it is up to the individual which one will be preferable. Many have no problem either way. The sensible thing would be to start with the inexpensive Gabapentin and go to Pregabalin if necessary, yet the opposite happens.

    44. Re: Because they could't sue the Government by astar · · Score: 1

      A few software thoughts

      who understood deeply drop dead dates?
      Sane people will sign on to a sure to fail project . At least a year before you get together and write each other glowing references and leave. What went wrong?
      this project was part of automating the entire DSHS? Client interface and i can point to worse disasters in trying to do that but i do not know of a success.
      of course no one was in charge in the sense of knowing and being able to force decisons for the DSHS project and the cover Oregon project.
      I can expect the requirements would have involved a lot of unobtainium hard AI anyway. These things always do.

      on the positive side

      they did not deploy the crap under the original guy. I was rather proud of him for that

    45. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says a lot about the idiocy of Oregon's decision makers in choosing Oracle in the first place, given that this outcome would have been blindingly obvious to anyone with anything vaguely resembling a working intellect.

    46. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by pepty · · Score: 1

      Did you ever wonder why nobody else makes the old formulation when it goes generic? It;s because the holder of the exclusive on the new formulation pays them not to.

      That did happen, so congress made the practice illegal. So instead the the Pharma and the generic manufacturer would enter a careful dance of lawsuits concerning infringement, which would end up with the Pharma settling and paying the generic some money. Congress Made that illegal too ... to some extent. Loopholes remain. Basically a Pharma can keep exclusivity for 6-24 months after the patent runs out depending on how they work it. When the first generic competitor finally comes online, there is very little change in price. Neither wants to start a price war. The big price drop happens when the third generic manufacturer joins the party, at which point competition for market share overtakes the lure of high profit margins.

    47. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by pepty · · Score: 1

      Guess what: until recently you had both. Some batches of that imported generic lipitor you took in the 'aughts quite likely had little of the active ingredient, due to nonexistent QC protocols at the time. A few billion dollars in fines, plants getting banned from exporting to the US, and increased inspections of foreign plants by the FDA is (hopefully) making the situation better.

    48. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by pepty · · Score: 1

      Many of the really expensive new drugs are actually quite expensive to produce as well. Turns out scaling up production of antibodies is a bitch, so is producing a custom one-off antibody to treat a single patient's cancer.

    49. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by pepty · · Score: 1

      Then there's the use of expensive still patented drugs in cases where equally good generics are just as usable at a tenth the price. That's not caused by an excess of regulation.

      A lot of the time that is happening because a doctor fought an insurance benefits manager for days to keep a patient on the expensive drug because the generics also used for the condition aren't nearly as good for that for that particular patient. "me too" drugs almost always benefit some groups of patients more than the first in class drug does. If they didn't they couldn't get approved.

    50. Re:Because they could't sue the Government by sjames · · Score: 2

      Actually, approval does not in practice require the new drug to be as good as or better than the original in any way. It has to show the basic safety and be more effective than placebo.

      In many cases, the inexpensive generic isn't even tried before jumping to the expensive option unless the patient brings it up or, in some cases, insists.

      My objection is not to the me too drugs in and of themselves, it is to the order they are tried in practice.

      The insurance companies are right (for once) to push back when the generic isn't even considered first. They are wrong to keep pushing when the doctor has any articulable reason to go with the more expensive drug for that particular patient, especially when the patient was on the generic and had a problem that the me too might solve.

  3. Both sides by war4peace · · Score: 0

    They should both pay each other 100M and be done with it!

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:Both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They both put it in their pockets and the only person that will lose are the tax payers.

    2. Re:Both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should both pay each other 100M and be done with it!

      Oh yeah, because the taxpayers deserve another 100M to pay for this shit, while Larry pulls that out of his fucking wallet and then writes it off as an expense?

      Uh, how about we give that idea a resounding FUCK THAT.

      Tell you what. Change the fine for Oracle to 100 billion and then maybe we'll talk. Even that wouldn't make up for the pain and misery a lot of people deal with every fucking day working with their shitty products.

    3. Re:Both sides by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Some people don't get jokes.
      Or the math behind the jokes.
      Oh well.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    4. Re:Both sides by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Let me explain to you as I would do to my 2 year old son.
      If we have an argument and you give me an apple, and I give you an apple to settle, who wins?
      NOBODY.
      DOH!

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:Both sides by pepty · · Score: 1

      Who gets the honey crisp and who gets the road?

  4. Reputation by Livius · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know if Oregon's suit has merit or not, but that sure sounds like my employer's experience with Oracle.

    1. Re:Reputation by alx512 · · Score: 5, Informative

      My employer unfortunately uses Oracle's HR management systems also. Worst piece of enterprise software I've ever seen. I have physical pain any time I have to use it. Their big iron databases used to be the shit, but even those seem to be going the way of the dodo as much cheaper, easier to use options are available these days.

    2. Re:Reputation by Nemyst · · Score: 5, Informative

      It sounds like Oracle's fucking business model. Overcommit, underbudget, get the job by being the "cheapest". Once the client's committed to your implementation, claim that the project brief was misleading or something and massively jack up the budget or leave the client with a stinking piece of shit.

      My university's management, financial and student software was upgraded by Oracle. Something like 70 million dollars later, the web frontend is a complete farce full of atrocious design decisions, confusing options and ridiculous limitations. The employee backend is so complicated and useless that you need a fucking MANUAL to use it, and most people need assistance to do basic tasks such as budgeting their funds.

    3. Re:Reputation by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know if Oregon's suit has merit or not, but that sure sounds like my employer's experience with Oracle.

      This is pretty much SOP with any big custom system from a big company. Sure, they'll check off the boxes of the requirements, but it'll never work right until you fork over triple what the original contract was for, for "additional implementation." It's essentially extortion because at that point the organization is so many millions of dollars into it that they're willing to spend millions more to make it functional.

      I'm very pleased that Oregon is not succumbing to this extortion and are fighting back. Oracle has claimed in the press that it was because the state added additional requirements midstream, but the problem isn't that they didn't implement those additional requirements, it's that they never delivered a functioning product, thus they did not fulfill a single requirement. Even if "it works" wasn't a specific requirement, it should be implied by the existence of any requirement which in itself requires the system to be functional. I hope Oregon gets back every penny they gave to Oracle, and I hope there's a legal reason they can get some massive penalties too.

    4. Re:Reputation by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, they go one better - be the most *expensive* bid, thereby convincing clueless MBAs of the superiority of your product, and then proceed to overcharge, delay, etc.

      Car analogy: They sell you the most expensive car ever. Then tell you the engine costs extra. And then tell you the petrol tank is extra. And by the way don't put regular petrol in it, only aviation fuel. And isn't that logarithmic-scale odometer so much more science-y than those other brands of cars?

    5. Re:Reputation by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Worst piece of enterprise software I've ever seen.

      Judging by what you write, Oracle should give your company a whole bunch of red shirts as a freebie. If nothing else, it would be a great example of truth in advertising.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    6. Re:Reputation by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      but it'll never work right until...

      It'll never work right, period.

      FTFY

    7. Re:Reputation by umdesch4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you seen SAP?

    8. Re:Reputation by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      It's essentially extortion because at that point the organization is so many millions of dollars into it that they're willing to spend millions more to make it functional.

      This is a good example of the sunk cost fallacy.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    9. Re:Reputation by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      This is a good example of the sunk cost fallacy.

      "Sunk costs" are often abandoned in the business world, but rarely in the political world. Politicians would rather throw good money after bad than admit that they made a mistake. Sunk costs are usually abandoned only after a change in governing party, so the mistake can then be blamed on the other guys.

    10. Re:Reputation by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't know if Oregon's suit has merit or not, but that sure sounds like my employer's experience with Oracle.

      Mine as well. We have contracts with hundreds of IT companies, and Oracle is by far the worst I've ever dealt with.
      A list of things I've witnessed oracle do first hand that make me hate them:
      1. Relegate "Bugs" to a "Bug list" that is so long you actually have an account you use to log into it and see the endless list of things wrong with their software they haven't gotten around to fixing yet.
      2. Support that's so poor, if you cannot provide them with step by step instructions of exactly how to reproduce it as well as an actual solution to the problem in many cases they will promptly close the ticket and tell you "We were unable to reproduce your issue" I've received that response sometimes within minutes... suggesting they made no attempt at all to look for it. Your local cable company provides better support than oracle.
      3. They intentionally deprecate features to try and prevent you from migrating to other systems. APIs, ODBC access, etc... Then offer to export the data for you for insane amounts of money (hundreds of thousands of dollars)
      4. They actually sent a trainer to us to train us on how to manipulate their own support organization to work tickets. Seriously, 6hrs on how to get support to work your ticket...
      5. With some products they patch, without notice, without testing. I walk in on Monday and find out a patch happened over the weekend I had no idea was going to happen, it brought several applications down. Then, when questioned about it postmortem, they actually said "Why would we notify you of these patches? There is no way they can cause a problem." When I pointed out that they just did, in fact, cause a problem, and that's why we were having this meeting, they said "Well this was a unique situation"
      6. The few applications we have that aren't Oracle, keep getting bought by Oracle. Who then fires everyone, sticks their own, horrendous staff in their place and ruins a product we're locked into a 3yr contract for.
      7. They have breached our contractually and legal obligated security policies no less than 7 times in the past 2 years. Not minor breaches, major ones. In one case access to hosted services they had was controlled by a whitelist. They decided, again without notice, to introduce a 2nd whitelist of API access, and default it to allow all. As a result access to the API for the service was wide open to the entire internet for months before we found out by accident what they had done. They pointed out that they had made the change public by creating a new webpage documenting the new setting, but no, they hadn't actually informed any customers the page existed and the patch that had been applied to implement the setting had been done so without any notifications being sent to anyone.

      I could go on and on... but suffice it to say Oracle is the devil, they hate their customers, want to steel their money and are by far the worst Tech company I've ever dealt with. Burn in hell Oracle.

    11. Re:Reputation by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      I don't know if Oregon's suit has merit or not, but that sure sounds like my employer's experience with Oracle.

      This is pretty much SOP with any big custom system from a big company.

      I know that we all like to paint with broad brushes, but back in the late 80s and 90s I worked for a large computer consulting outfit that did a reasonable job of delivering on time and on budget. But of course, it all depends on the individuals involved. The company had done an excellent job of hiring managers that hired technically competent people--and then trained them to estimate high to keep from causing problems later on.

      It's funny how on the one hand we like to criticize pointy haired bosses for treating all employees like interchangeable widgets, but then when painting with such broad strokes, we do the same. But then again, if we're talking about Oracle, even if there are competent, well meaning individuals involved, they get over shadowed by a corporate culture of sleaze that starts at the top.

    12. Re:Reputation by sjames · · Score: 1

      Similar things happen in business. No manager wants their pet project to actually be declared an expensive failure. They'd rather throw more money at it until it can at least limp out of the starting gate.

    13. Re:Reputation by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Well, a log scale odometer would certainly help preserve resale value.

    14. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      after spending $240M. Kentucky's is widely considered the best. It was ready on day one, and has run without major problems since. Kentucky spent about $8M, or 3% of what Oregon (quote from previous /. comment)

      I would say they do it cheap if the above quote is true, if anything should be added to your post it's more likely they 'overcharge' then cheap skate on everything to make the most profit. Which is pretty much what most IT companies do. The governor should be put on the chopping block for making an obviously terrible choice. Again politicians showing how worthless and brainless they really are, how hard would it have been to hire an savvy tech adviser to direct you? I can promise it wouldn't have cost 240+ million for one.

    15. Re:Reputation by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is what happens when a customer doesn't want to own the system they are buying. Like a lot of places they probably had MBAs at the top who took the whole "not our core competency" thing too far. Yet again. Sure hire a vendor or vendors. But Own The Fucking System. Don't just let the vendors do what they want. It is a licence to push out shit with no oversight. I don't know for certain that this was the case here but that would be my guess.

      Oracle was hired to implement the system and are of course software vendors. Even if it would mean fitting a square peg to a round hole, they'll try to use an all Oracle solution. This was a big enough project that the project management and architecture teams could have been separate from the software vendors. They almost always should be. Them and systems analysts should have been able to keep things in line if it wasn't all run by Oracle. If the implementation team was independent, I think it more likely they would use the right tools for the job. Blame the PHBs in Oregon for hiring Oracle. This should serve as a cautionary tale (which of course will be ignored).

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    16. Re:Reputation by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In 2001, I was Avaya's first order on SAP (or so I was told at the time). After delivering the wrong thing 3 times, a tech drove to the depot, and physically selected the correct thing, and hand carried it to the site to install. After the install, relatively easy, once the correct thing was there, the bill was wrong. Eventually, they billed us for $12k for a $110k project (after I sent back the first 4 or so bills for obvious errors). So I paid the $12k, and got the "paid in full" response. Never heard anything to indicate they ever found their error.

      I've had multiple people tell me it's unethical to deliberately under-pay, but after months of trying to get a correct bill, should I go to collections over a wrong bill or pay one "in full" to stop the harassment of a billing department that can't get the right numbers?

      About 5 years later, I heard is was still wrong more than right, though it did get better. It seemed like it would be difficult to get something so wrong. All the wrong parts showed up. Repeatedly. I saw the "order" and the delivery, and there weren't even the same number of items there, so it wasn't a part number mix up.

    17. Re:Reputation by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And when the car breaks down, you find out that the warranty is void because the tires can only be filled with pure N2, and oxygen in the tires voids the warranty.

      And, because the warranty documentation is separate from the manual, it doesn't matter if you read and memorize the manual, you'll never see that suggestion/reocmmendation. Other than the silly "return the car to dealer if the tire pressure is low" comment.

    18. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They decided, again without notice, to introduce a 2nd whitelist of API access

      This is my biggest reason for hating Oracle. You do NOT change the default behavior of an enterprise software product in the middle of a fucking release. If you absolutely must, you KEEP the default behavior and document a manual configuration change that is required to change the default behavior. True security vulnerabilities in the original shipped code are one of the few exceptions to this rule. (No, Java Update 45 which broke everything does NOT count as a true security vulnerability).

    19. Re:Reputation by antdude · · Score: 1

      Yep, lots of Oracle for my workplace too. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    20. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got trained on Oracle dev and dba tools in the mid-nineties
      Used that to earn a decent wage for the next 20 years
      I have a pretty good opinion of the Oracle eBS suite, mainly because it puts money in my pocket

    21. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First off I am an MBA and have worked as a consultant delivering Oracle applications (not for Oracle consulting)

      1. Oracle probably demoed a out of the box solution that could deliver about 25% of the functionality (Oracle advanced benefits, tied to Oracle HR) and gave a spiel about delivery on the remaining gaps through customizations
      2. Oregon probably figured that hiring expensive consultants (Oracle eBS consultant go for about $250/hr) would be cheaper in the long run that hiring and/or training their own people and having to keep them on payroll, pay benefits and retirement, etc...
      3. The PM running the job identified additional steps as the project moved forward and got permission to change the scope of the project
      4. Once that one change was allowed an avalanche of changes continued to be demanded (probably needed), which resulted in blown budget and timeline

      At least that is how things happen in my experience

    22. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the phb's of today would rather spend a ton on consultants than to hire and train competent people because they want to avoid the costs of benefits and long term employment (including retirement)

      They assume that they can further cut costs without loss of functionality by shipping it overseas

      They rarely exercise control over requirements and are susceptible to allowing changes in scope because they have no idea what is going on, or people on their staff who are competent to tell them

      recipe for disaster

    23. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SAP has been sapping precious bodily fluids of a familiar departmental secretary of a German engineering company since 1996. She is now retired. I saw it then, and it wasn't good for humans.

    24. Re:Reputation by buybuydandavis · · Score: 2

      Yes, that's part of the tactic of the corps. No bureaucrat is going to cut his own project. Or his own budget.

      So the corp over promises, and the bureaucrats sign on, thereby committing to the project and the relationship. The bureaucrats are never going to say "please cut the project where all my expertise and relationships are", even if he's not being greased under the table. Which the decision makers are.

    25. Re: Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have same experience. A fish rots from the head and down. The boisterous CEO leads the culture. I've found oracle consultants to be underperformant, with especially pooe understanding of customer needs/eequirements,while their sale as staff is extremely aggressive. That leaves a huge hap between what is sold and what is delivered. During the project, they will machine generate hundreds of pages per day of verbose project status reports, to make sure the customer never know keep up and get to the big picture. Maybe it is not fraud, but anyone who gets into a project with oracle need a solid handbook of how to spot their tricks. Conventional methods are nor sufficient. Conventional methods assume that the participant give a best effort and report progress correctly.

    26. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, SAP. Or as it is known around my company: STOP ALL PRODUCTION!!!

    27. Re:Reputation by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      So you just confirmed my theory.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    28. Re:Reputation by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 1

      8. Oracle managed services failed to grasp what a replication timestamp was. For a week, their daily report was indicating that the replication had worked flawlessly even tho the timestamp on the target hadn't changed.

      9. Oracle managed services sent me the daily report of another company, with financial information, on more than one occasion. They have also obviously sent my customer's data to other companies.

      10. Back when Sun was still a separate entity, they won a 4 years staffing/project contract where the first action point was implementing unified authentication with LDAP (the site was mostly Solaris 8, with some HP-UX and a pair of AIX boxen). They only successfully delivered this feature 7 years later, after three contract extensions, when the whole site had been migrated to Solaris 10. They were surprised when they didn't win the new staffing/project contract and even more surprised when the customer massively migrated to RHEL.

    29. Re:Reputation by GNious · · Score: 1

      It sounds like Oracle's fucking business model. Overcommit, underbudget, get the job by being the "cheapest". Once the client's committed to your implementation, claim that the project brief was misleading or something and massively jack up the budget or leave the client with a stinking piece of shit.

      Can confirm is not only Oracle, but any large (IT? Consulting?) company, that thinks they can get away with it, uses this strategy.

    30. Re:Reputation by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when a customer doesn't want to own the system they are buying. Like a lot of places they probably had MBAs at the top who took the whole "not our core competency" thing too far. Yet again. Sure hire a vendor or vendors. But Own The Fucking System. Don't just let the vendors do what they want. It is a licence to push out shit with no oversight. I don't know for certain that this was the case here but that would be my guess.

      That's not a silver bullet. There's a government IT project running in Australia where they decided to do exactly that, Own The Fucking System. You now have a government department with this huge tumor growing out the side of it that develops, updates, and maintains their IT project. Since govt.departments aren't set up to run IT development work, it's ended up as an antipattern for everything you can do wrong in a project of this nature. There's way, way too much to type in here, but given the level of fail I'm sure one or more people will write books about it at some point.

    31. Re:Reputation by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It is the good old building contractors method. No matter how bad the plan and how bad the specification, quote it exactly as indicated and build it exactly as indicated with zero margins and then charge 100% margin on all the work required to fix it and actually make it functional. Over specifying works often means getting exactly what you asked for no matter how bad it is. So either do it in-house or keep the specifications to a minimum only defining the required outcomes not how to achieve them and split the work up as much as possible, so hopefully at least parts of it will be functional whilst other parts are fixed.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    32. Re:Reputation by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      I have a pretty good opinion of the Oracle eBS suite, mainly because it puts money in my pocket

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

    33. Re:Reputation by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. The Super-Conducting Super Collider was abandoned after sinking a ton of cash. So was the FBI's Virtual Case File project, which sounds like a dead ringer for the Oregon website project.

    34. Re:Reputation by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Owning the system doesn't mean having to hire or do all the support yourself, nor custom coding it. It means owning it. You know what you bought. You are responsible for what you bought. You manage what you bought. You've done the research on what you bought and bought the right thing. You manage the implementation and documentation of the implementation. You document the expected system behaviour integration points and make sure that's what happens by system and user acceptance testing before you agree to final payment.

      You DON'T just fork over $US300,000,000.00 to a vendor and just believe them. Owning the system means being responsible for what is being installed and not abdicating that responsibility onto a vendor who has other motivations. Like the company's bottom line. Even if it had worked, if you don't own your own system you end up buying shit you don't need or is kludgey and hard to modify in the future without said vendor (tightly coupled rather than loosely coupled in design vernacular), that is, they've stuck an umbrella up your ass and opened it so now they're never getting out and you have to rely on them for everything from now on. Brutal charges if you want to sub out one of their sub systems for another. etc etc etc.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    35. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty much, if I was going to snipe anything I would say that Oracle Consulting and Oracle Software are two different corporations
      Yes, Oracle Consulting will always recommend Oracle Software, but being separate corporations give Oracle Software some isolation from lawsuits
      Beyond that PMPs should have recognized these issues decades ago and have learned to give proper leeway in their estimates, but they are far too political (as in willing to please with words, not deeds) to do that

    36. Re:Reputation by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      PMP just means you know how to pass their certification tests and paid them money to put that beside your name. HR departments are full of lame asses who are too incompetent to find candidates based on their CVs (and how to weed out bullshit CVs) so just hire people who can pass the PMP examine. PMP doesn't mean they can competently manage a project.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    37. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's everybody's experience with Oracle.

    38. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      condescend much?
      I understand that Oracle licensing is damned expensive
      I understand that hiring Oracle consulting over your own developers is the most expensive way to implement
      I understand that properly scoping the work early and controlling additional features is essential to delivering a project on budget
      I understand that compressing the timeline is expensive, if not impossible
      These are all factors in the failure in Oregon

      I also understand that slashdot harbors a deep and irrational hatred of Oracle and just loves to pile on criticism without bothering to look at the customer's role in any of it. If you can show me a comprehensive business suite that can manage a large organization's finance, hr, payroll, projects, assets, etc... then I will take you seriously

    39. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, yes

    40. Re:Reputation by dkf · · Score: 1

      Worst piece of enterprise software I've ever seen. I have physical pain any time I have to use it.

      I know it's enterprise software, but you're really not supposed to shove it up your ass each time you use it.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    41. Re:Reputation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://web.archive.org/web/20040408124353/http://www.orafraud.org/Oracle/terminator.html

      I'm not surprised.

  5. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can people sue Oracle for "abysmal" exploitation of the legal system?

    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, that would most likely be under vexatious litigation.

      It is a tough standard to meet, but it can be done.

      You can also void a contract under various practices to dispute them as unjust.

  6. Lawsuits by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have no doubt at all that Oracle committed fraud and lied a lot. I have no doubt Oregon's project management failed to give adequate oversight to the project, failed to adequately specify the project, and repeatedly changed what little specification they provided.

    Neither matters. I have no doubt this lawsuit will ultimately fail, because the Oregon attorney general doesn't have the technical ability to prove the fraud and lies. The state has already proven they don't understand what they're doing. We're about to get a second demonstration.

    1. Re:Lawsuits by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

      I I have no doubt this lawsuit will ultimately fail, because the Oregon attorney general doesn't have the technical ability to prove the fraud and lies. The state has already proven they don't understand what they're doing. We're about to get a second demonstration.

      With a name like Oracle I guess they saw that one coming....

  7. Doesn't matter anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Larry Ellison just bought Oregon.

  8. Holy crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm pretty sure for 240 million I'd be able to do it from my bedroom.

    1. Re: Holy crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you could probably do it for a few thousands if you wanted - can that site be that complex?! It could be nearly free for them if they just developed it open source because - what a surprise - some people actually enjoy coding and creating software, fixing bugs etc. They could even have developed it in-house! Sure, that looks expensive at first but it would probably still be *way* less expensive than 240Millions! It gets even more interesting if you consider that there are also a bunch of other states - maybe you could sell it? But nah, let's just throw 240M out of the window because - why not, it's the tax payer's money.

  9. Deflect Blame? by ZeroSerenity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "is a desperate attempt to deflect blame from Cover Oregon and the governor for their failures to manage a complex IT project." It shouldn't be their job, that's what they paid you for.

    --
    For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
    1. Re:Deflect blame? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Err, excuse me - if Oracle are the contractor its up to THEM to manage the fecking project.

      If they're left to do so, yes. I suspect they weren't, not fully. there was constant meddling and scope change and feature creep and "wait, we have THIS data too" shit being flung around like there's no tomorrow.

      Usually when you hire a big company like Oracle you give them the requirements, pay them money and they're supposed to deliver the goods

      Absolutely correct. In theory. In practice, I'm yet to see a project involving multiple people which goes through its lifecycle like theory says it should. No wonder most wildly successful projects are being handled by a one-man team.

      I wonder what are the odds they used some cheap indian labour who can just about switch on a computer much less deliver a working program. Sorry if some people find that racist, but indian coders in my experience are universally bloody useless.

      Fairly small. They used mixed teams, which is actually worse because of constant culture clashes.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    2. Re: Deflect Blame? by chill · · Score: 1

      No, they didn't. Oregon acted as the systems integrator and overall project manager. Oracle was the main contractor but not the integrator.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    3. Re:Deflect blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Typically there needs to be a project manager on the client end, as well as the vendor. That way the vendor PM has someone to talk to when they want to clarify requirements, discuss training and deployment, propose changes, etc. And there's someone to filter the idiotic feedback that comes from the.users and their management.

      If Oregon was too cheap to fill that role despite the vendor asking for it, they deserve what they got.

    4. Re:Deflect blame? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Usually when you hire a big company like Oracle you give them the requirements, pay them money and they're supposed to deliver the goods, so Oracle whining that they apparently weren't given good enough management is pathetic.

      If Oracle was hired to deliver a database, and they did, but it doesn't work because someone else didn't do their job, then is it really Oracle's fault it doesn't work?

    5. Re:Deflect blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually when you hire a big company like Oracle you give them the requirements, pay them money and they're supposed to deliver the goods

      Absolutely correct. In theory. In practice, ....

      umm... usually when you hire a big company, you have a contract that spells out who is supposed to do what. It's not completely clear from the news articles, but it sounds like the contract did *not* provide for Oracle to do the project management. Also, if the goal of the business transaction doesn't exist, then it's not "goods" - you can fault Oracle for signing up with insufficient requirements / design and no project management (I do), but you can't hold them responsible if the contract itself doesn't do so.

  10. Incidentally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...taxpayers are always left holding the bag. There are no exceptions.

  11. It's a complot by Teun · · Score: 1

    For me as a total but interrested outsider it looks like the closet republican Larry is took his chance to frustrate decent healthcare.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:It's a complot by sound+vision · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This mishmash of overlapping but non-integrating state, federal, and private health care systems, each party taking their cut and adding another layer of inefficiency, is "decent health care"?

    2. Re:It's a complot by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's horrible sub-standard health care, but still better than what came before.

    3. Re:It's a complot by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't.

      Total cost for health care is far higher than before and the end result is pretty much exactly the same as before. The basic coverage you end up with on the low end is so shitty that its effectively useless for the poor people who need it, and to top it off, now the people who pay for it all, pay far more.

      If you want socialized health care, fucking socialize it and take private business out of the equation entirely, it will never work as long as there greedy businesses mixed in with it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:It's a complot by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I was going for... the system that is being implemented currently can be described as "the worst of all worlds".

    5. Re:It's a complot by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Kulaks are always sabotaging the plans of the Party!

    6. Re:It's a complot by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      If you want socialized health care, fucking socialize it and take private business out of the equation entirely, it will never work as long as there greedy businesses mixed in with it.

      Yes, only people who offer value in free exchange are the greedy ones. Men with guns who take they want aren't greedy at all.

    7. Re:It's a complot by cbhacking · · Score: 4, Informative

      While I agree, in general, with the claims of how shitty Obamacare is...

      I have friends who now have health insurance, and another who has finally been able to leave his old employer (to start his own company and become self-employed), because of Obamacare. Specifically, two of these friends are cancer survivors (throat and cervical), one has fibromyalgia, and one has a chronic autoimmune disorder whose name I forget. They wouldn't have been able to buy health insurance, otherwise; nobody was willing to offer it. So, for them personally, Obamacare *is* better than what they had before.

      Of course, there are a lot of less-fucked-up ways of addressing that issue.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    8. Re:It's a complot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have friends who now have health insurance

      Everyone who says this needs to watch Sicko again, including Michael Moore. Because the whole point of the movie was how health care is a nightmare freakshow for people with insurance.

      The problem is not and never has been the lack of health insurance. It's the lack of health care.

    9. Re:It's a complot by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      I don't deny this. The entire health insurance industry is a parasite on our economic ability to keep people healthy; it extracts value from the economy without producing anything of greater value. However, in the current environment, it's practically non-optional (actually, post-Obamacare, it's required even more so, but it was almost mandatory beforehand too). Healthcare in the US is phenomenally expensive compared to practically anywhere else in the world, and while I'll happily note that our doctors are excellent, they are *not* worth what they cost in most situations. Very few people set aside the kind of money required to cover the time when they *will* need it, and even those who otherwise would do so may find themselves unable to set aside that much if a medical emergency hits them young.

      So yeah, universal health insurance (through mandatory patronage of for-profit insurance companies) is a sucky attempt at a solution. Sadly, it is *still* better than what we had before, for those who previously simply could not get such insurance due to pre-existing conditions or medical history.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  12. Promised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Promised software products?

  13. Working with Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the one hand, I'm glad someone with deep pockets is going after Oracle. They are a terrible company that screws over their customers and developers. On the other hand everyone knows Oracle is a terrible company so I don't think Oregon is blameless. Taking out a contact with Oracle is like throwing money out the window of a moving car and anyone doing business with Oracle gets what they deserve.

  14. Hire Engineers as Employees. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm starting to think that State, Provincial, Reigonal, Local and Federal governments should Purchase Technologies from companies, and then hire their own Salaried Engineers to actually handle the operations. Stop creating these service contracts and don't let this nonsense go on.

    1. Re:Hire Engineers as Employees. by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's what we do with Oracle and we're actually doing pretty well with them. We only let them build the dev environment, train our staff, and create documentation. The other environments are built entirely by the people they trained using the documentation provided, and once we are confident we can rebuild the system even if Oracle vanished off the face of the earth, we send the consultants on their way. This approach should be done with *any* vendor though.

    2. Re:Hire Engineers as Employees. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm starting to think that State, Provincial, Reigonal, Local and Federal governments should Purchase Technologies from companies, and then hire their own Salaried Engineers to actually handle the operations. Stop creating these service contracts and don't let this nonsense go on.

      It's a great idea, but really hard to execute well. Having worked on contracts in Salem, it's not a huge town. Attracting talented developers and system administrators in a small market is difficult enough, and is even harder when you're paying them 30-50% under market. Unless they're really committed to government service, it's a tough sell, since you're asking them to move to a market where the government is basically the only employer.

      Additionally, how may specialized employees do you really want to hire for 30 years? Once a person enters civil service, they're very hard to get rid of. Classification decisions move very slowly, and many times the public sector is stuck trying to re-tread employees that aren't suited for new tasks. One project might need a dozen top-notch PeopleSoft developers for a few years, another might need PHP developers. These maybe shouldn't be the same people, but they probably have the same public sector classification, and hiring managers often find themselves fighting with the civil service system. You can mitigate some of this by using short-term contract positions, but now you aren't even offering the stability/security of full civil service, so finding qualified resources is even harder.

      Oregon DHS/OHA actually tried to serve as the System Integrator on this project, which was part of the problem. The State really didn't have the experience or personnel to manage a team of Oracle sharks. It seems counter intuitive, but a few more independent contractors may have saved a lot of money in this instance.

  15. The blame lies with Oregon by Munchr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have no love for Oracle, but the blame cannot be placed at their feet. As has been reported in local Oregon and nationwide news, Oracle insisted Oregon hire a project manager and systems integrator, either because the contract did not permit Oracle to fulfill those roles or Oracle was not capable of performing those roles. Oregon refused those requests, despite many warnings from Oracle and Cover Oregon's own director that without such services the site would not be ready to go live. Instead, Oregon placed a gag order on everyone involved in the project to hide the problems from the public. This is very much a problem caused by Oregon, not by any willful fraud by Oracle. This is also SOP for Oregon Government, with just about any project they undertake. (Full disclosure, I am one of many pissed off Oregonians.)

    1. Re:The blame lies with Oregon by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And to top it off, somebody in Oregon selected Oracle to be their vendor in the first place. I'll eagaerly await the replies here from folks whose experience with Oracle was that they were on-time, on-budget, went above-and-beyond in the name of customer service, and were a pleasure to work with. Too bad no company in the entire state of Oregon was qualified to build a database-backed website!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:The blame lies with Oregon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed.

    3. Re:The blame lies with Oregon by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Oracle insisted Oregon hire a project manager and systems integrator... Oregon refused those requests...

      So Oracle took Oregon's money, and the hit on their own reputation. I wonder if it was worth it?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    4. Re:The blame lies with Oregon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the big damage here is that Oregon paid Oracle to set up and create a working online health care exchange system for ACA. The system was never made functional and today it still doesn't work nearly a year after sign ups for healthcare began in september/october 2013. This forced Oregon to process all health care sign ups manually by hand.

      All it comes down to is if Oracle failed to provide the working project they bidded on.

      Other states got working health care websites but not Oregon, perhaps solely because of Oracle's mistakes. This is why Oregon intends to collect from the wasted tax payer dollars which is quite a chunk and they didn't have to lose.

      http://www.obamasweapon.com/

    5. Re:The blame lies with Oregon by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Instead, Oregon placed a gag order on everyone involved in the project to hide the problems from the public.

      That's the way government solves problems - point guns at people to shut them up. Problem solved!

    6. Re:The blame lies with Oregon by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Given Oracle's reputation, I doubt they noticed the hit.

  16. Not all states failed by kybred · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's a success story about Kentucky's Kynect Exchange.

    They need not have worried. Over the past year, Kentucky’s health care website has proved to be a huge success. More than a half-million Kentucky residents have signed up for the Bluegrass State’s version of Obamacare. A majority of Kentuckians approve of it. That this has happened in a deeply red state is unexpected but hardly an accident.

    1. Re:Not all states failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Didn't use Oracle, wound up with a functional product. Who'd have ever guessed!

    2. Re:Not all states failed by TechNeilogy · · Score: 2

      I can second this. I have some experience with the Kynect product. There were (and still are), a few glitches, but these seem to be relatively minor. One key factor in the success was training and supporting "Kynect-ors" in helping people use the site. These "Kynect-ors" had also had priority access to varying levels of technical support to help iron out glitches when they did occur. Nothing's ever perfect in politics, healthcare, or programming, and I'm sure there are a few "horror stories," but overall, the Kynect roll-out was very impressive.

      --
      "The wisdom of the Patriarchs was that they *knew* they were fools." --Master Foo
  17. Good answer! Fraud is their main source of profit? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Good answer: "... the Oregon attorney general doesn't have the technical ability to prove the fraud and lies. The state has already proven they don't understand what they're doing."

    Also, Oracle has been through this perhaps thousands of times. Apparently the major profit center for companies like Oracle is being late and more expensive than predicted. For example, see this quote from the book, Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment:

    "... a recent General Accounting Office report on U.S. military equipment procurement concluded that only 1% of major military purchases involving high technology were delivered on time and on budget."

    That book says the problem is due to a sociological mistake. My understanding is that it is entirely intended, a way of making money from the largely hidden military purchases of the U.S. government. For the U.S. government, killing people is an enormous, extremely profitable business.

  18. The Tribe of Madoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What else do you expect from these dual citizens whose tribe has produced the biggest crooks of history?

    1. Re:The Tribe of Madoff by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Madoff is a dual citizen? Of what?

  19. typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    My onetime employer had Oracle come in and take over managing their entire employee database system.

    At one point a manager asked what it would take to have the letter that the system created to be sent out accepting a new employee changed to add a yellow hilight over a couple of important lines in the Word document.

    They told him it would take six hours of programmer time at $200/hour.

    He bought a 69 cent hilighter instead.

    1. Re:typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This does not take into account the labor costs

    2. Re:typical by sjames · · Score: 2

      It will take a lot of new hires for intern time spent with a hiliter to add up to $1200.

    3. Re:typical by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That's cheap. I tried to add a line to a JDE database, and was told it would be $20k. Yes, having a pull down box go from 1,2,3,4,or 5 to 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 costs $20k from the support that the company I worked for purchased. $1200 was cheap for such a minor change.

  20. absurd by wizden · · Score: 1, Redundant

    240 million dollars? For a website? This is amazingly stupid. That is a ridiculous amount of money for the functionality they're looking for.

    1. Re:absurd by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Nope. A website that has to hook into a bunch of poorly maintained, poorly documented databases. That's the hard part.

      That they screwed up the web site portion of it is typical Oracle however. Unfortunately, like in any major disaster, there are going to be a number of interlocking pieces, numerous bad decisions and enough legal boilerplate to cover the world ten feet deep.

      The only people standing at the end will be the lawyers.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re: absurd by wizden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I understand the challenges but I maintain that it's not 240 million bucks worth of difficult.

    3. Re:absurd by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      Nope. A website that has to hook into a bunch of poorly maintained, poorly documented databases. That's the hard part.

      This kind of crap is par for the course. I've had to figure out poorly designed databases without documentation, and it didn't cost millions of dollars to do that. Admittedly, insurance company big iron is probably much hairier to deal with than what I'm used to... but $240 million worth? Sorry, I just don't see how this adds up.

    4. Re: absurd by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      You could probably re-write every piece of software Oracle has ever sold, in their entirety for $240 million (not including the Sun assets, Solaris has legitimate time and effort put into it).

    5. Re: absurd by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, Oracle's database does a lot of stuff very well indeed. Provided, of course, that you can figure out how to deploy it with the capabilities you need without going bankrupt by surprise when the bill that arrives isn't quite what you expected....

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  21. Oracle sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To bad slashdot comment sections can't be used in court.....

    Obviously the technical community really hates Oracle. I personally do. They squeeze people for $40K over 1 more CPU. The whole thing needs to come down in price by about 20 times before I'd ever recommend it.

    Only thing is their DB *does* do some cool things nobody else's does. Until you're a PhD level Database guru like one of the guys I worked with who explained all the little "differences", it's not apparently obvious what they do better.

    But that doesn't have anything to do with allowing extortion level tactics. I hate this company with a passion!

    1. Re:Oracle sucks. by umdesch4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not a PhD level database guru, but my career has been almost entirely working with databases over the last 20 years. I can say that the underlying technology of the Oracle RDBMS itself is light years beyond other systems. I'm not an advocate of anything Oracle has done in other arenas over the last 10-15 years, but I experience an existential crisis every day in my job where I love working within an Oracle database, but hate pretty much everything about the company that owns it.

    2. Re:Oracle sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oracle's DB software is not "lightyears" better, it is an incremental improvement over most competitors for most uses.
      However, the usability is SO BAD that your typical company cannot correctly configure their systems to take advantage of Oracle's software - resulting in a final product that is no better, or even worse, than if they had used a competitor.

    3. Re:Oracle sucks. by umdesch4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Too bad you posted AC, otherwise I could make sure I never hire you. Sorry man, but the last 10 companies I worked for got pretty big things done with Oracle DBs, and were able to host several-terabyte databases doing things that even DB2 would choke on, never mind MySQL or SQL Server, or any other DB I've worked with. I've worked with more companies that have migrated *to* Oracle because they outgrew what they were using, than the other way around. There's always much gnashing of teeth, and angst over going with such a reprehensible company's product...but that's been my experience at least.

    4. Re:Oracle sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several terabytes? Color me unimpressed. The fact these other companies 'outgrew' the OSS solutions meant they didn't understand how to use them.

    5. Re:Oracle sucks. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      I've stayed away from that side of IT, but I've heard it isn't size, it's performance. *any* database can keep up with a 2 TB database, even a flat-file. The trick is to do so with 10k lookups, and 1k writes per second (or some other number, I'm just pulling some out of thin air). Oracle claims some uptime and resiliency that's impossible with "standard" databases as well.

    6. Re:Oracle sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thank goodness you did not post AC. I will not hire you, since you are so blindly in love with Oracle that all problems are its nail heads. I was in it for 11 years before I decided to become the boss, and I can say with certainty that it is not the best ... for all purposes. For specific purposes, yes, but only if there is also a DBA on staff. Short of that, Oracle's complexity is a minus, not a plus. A major minus.

      More specifically, my experience with Oracle is that its features are ahead of other DBs by a couple of years, but they are not exclusive. For example, I was excited to see the implementation of Streaming Replication and Hot Standby in PostgreSQL, but Oracle had those years earlier. Windowing functions, full-text search, updateable cursors, all of these Oracle had just a couple years earlier.

      On the other side of that coin, I've not been impressed with Oracle's support. With these features coming earlier than in other DBs, there also are bugs. (Lots of them, judging by the sheer number we alone reported.) Sometimes there is a relatively fast turnaround time for patches -- 2 days (a simple date bug I discovered while hired as a Postgres DBA) -- when I do all the work of identifying exactly the parameters, and then there is the not-so-fast turnaround time of 13 months (which only got fixed after *I* did the diagnostic work ... 13 months later).

      Oracle does amazing things, provided you have the cash and the business need for the DBs features. As a small-business owner (48 employees), however, I cannot justify Oracle. For example, we have several multi-terabyte and two petabyte size databases that Postgres handles brilliantly. There have been issues, sure, but they almost always work out to an application dev doing something silly. Meanwhile, whenever a dev has come to me (~3 times/year for the past 7 years), my go-to response has been "Okay. But first, please research what it would cost to hire or develop this feature in a competing open source DB." Every single time, the cost-benefit analysis has not been in Oracle's favor.

      I'm happy to pay for Oracle, provided a business justification for its power. We've yet to encounter that justification -- just clients and developers who haven't completed the thought process of what they actually need.

  22. Driving home the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a lot of experience with government customers, and in 95% of cases they don't understand whatever they want and what stands behind it. Few have PMP knowledge or even certificates, many delegate project management to the contractors, like company I'm working at. And this is ok, but in this case it looks like they tried to manage it themselves, failed, and shifting blame to vendor. Management has to speak certain language to the vendors, and this language could only be learned over years of experience.
    In this case state want their inability to manage complex projects will be proven in court.
    Also worth mentioning, that all of failed projects are flawed from the start, undersized, without a scope with vague contact and so on.

    1. Re:Driving home the point by wizden · · Score: 4, Informative

      How is building a website with a database back end a complex project? How does 240 million get spent and they couldn't afford a project manager? I know there are ridiculous integration requirement but this isn't exactly rocket surgery.

  23. Deflect blame? by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "from Cover Oregon and the governor for their failures to manage a complex IT project."

    Err, excuse me - if Oracle are the contractor its up to THEM to manage the fecking project. Why the hell should the governor be hands on with this? Do they think he's also down at every roadworks checking the spades?

    Usually when you hire a big company like Oracle you give them the requirements, pay them money and they're supposed to deliver the goods, so Oracle whining that they apparently weren't given good enough management is pathetic.

    I wonder what are the odds they used some cheap indian labour who can just about switch on a computer much less deliver a working program. Sorry if some people find that racist, but indian coders in my experience are universally bloody useless.

  24. H1-B and outsource are responsible for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I dare Oracle to audit just exactly who worked on this project - how many H1-B's at Oracle and foreign outsourcing.insourcing was done (probably, to India). I will bet hard $$$ that a majority of the work for Oregon was done this way. What I have seen over and over again is more and more H1-B garbage code put into BASIC infrastructure projects. Oracle and other companies walk away with profit, and we're left holding a bag of garbage.

    1. Re:H1-B and outsource are responsible for this by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Java is not H1-B garbage code. H1-B does what H1-B is ordered to do, as a slave, to put bread on the table. The root cause trickles down from higher up above, who are dazzled by concepts such as object polymorphism and inheritance, and such sexy names, by abstractualizing the conceptualizations of how the different frameworks interact from an objective perspective, that are a massive waste of time, effort, complexity, etc., along the lines of why C++ was not chosen for Win32 back in the day. Of course we can all embark in this mission of bending over backwards and forcing C++ complexity into some better performing thing, but under grave cost. Same goes for Java, that oracle bought. Complexity of constructor destructor polymorphism inheritance crashes that boggle the minds of the H1-B. Every feature carries a complexity and performance cost, and when you have to use a Boeing 777 or 797 to run errands at the nearby grocery store, like Java has to be used for something as dumb and simple as a health care website, it's an overkill, like shooting a fly with a nuclear bomb instead of a fly swat, and wondering why it's taking so long, it should have been done in 0.4 second, but the warhead launch sequence takes at least 5 minutes to prepare.

    2. Re:H1-B and outsource are responsible for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java is not H1-B garbage code.

      Correct, java has been a POS pretty much ever since it came out.

      Java is a small program (28 MB installer for version 7.67), and it still has the security of Swiss cheese.

      Spend some of Oracle's billions and clean up the code.

    3. Re:H1-B and outsource are responsible for this by mendax · · Score: 1

      The contractors governments often do business off-shore the work and that is one of the reasons why the projects are so shitty. But there are other reasons. Government agencies don't operate in the same way businesses do. For example, the requirements documents are NEVER frozen. Some reptilian politician gets a burr up his ass, writes some new regulations, and *POOF* the requirements have to be changed and any code already written has to be either dumped or changed to reflect it. Also, when the law changes, as happens way too often, the same problems occur. Every coder here knows what happens in these situations!

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    4. Re:H1-B and outsource are responsible for this by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Government agencies don't operate in the same way businesses do. For example, the requirements documents are NEVER frozen. Some reptilian politician gets a burr up his ass, writes some new regulations, and *POOF* the requirements have to be changed and any code already written has to be either dumped or changed to reflect it.

      And even if the requirement documents never changed, even if they were chiseled in granite, they'd still be shit.

      When doesn't this happen in government IT? Shit requirements in, they're run through a blender every other month, and a system slowly grows, while the bureaucrats sign off again and again, because he who spots the problem is held to have created the problem.

    5. Re:H1-B and outsource are responsible for this by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Dude, Java came out in the days of Nutscrape 3.0, and it was like a 2 MB plugin, or smaller. The wikipedia page does not do it justice, it's hopelessly biased - as in, the victors always rewrite history -
      so it is here is, from memory.

      Netscape was a flying star at the beginning of the INTERNET revolution, and without it, bbs's sucked.
      Netscape 1 had "hypertext", meaning you clicked in the text on hyperlinks, and it would load other information. The whole internet became a massive interconnected mess of webpages kind of like and encyclopedia is linked to different articles. This was much different than popmail for email, or ftp for file access, and the like, gopher. news. finger. etc., each on a different network port, all fallen by the wayside in favor of http, the web, hypertext, on port 80. I still try to use popmail and fpt these days, and even telnet, and they are each all less bandwidth hogs compared to how http has been bastardised. In fact for my telnet connection to IGS, internet Go server would be overkill to have a 14.4 kbps modem dialup, let alone 56kbps, or let alone the 15,000kbps TWC cable modem I got.

      Netscape 2 added javascript. a revolutionary concept at the time. They looked for a way to add macros or scripting, just like office applications have it. Since then javascript has been bastardized to where it kills the user's cpu on pages like Twitter or Facebook.

      Only in 3.0 was a java interpreter included. The whole Netscape Navigator 3.04 install file is 3.4 MB, and it includes. besides a full java. the rest of the internet browser shebang too.

      Java in 3.0 was used to build sandboxed web programs that had better security than ocx COM by microsoft, because ocx was not built in a chroot, sandbox mentality. Plus platform agnosticism. as in runs on unix. mac. amiga. windows. etc. was a benefit in those days, but it did come at a performance hit. to the point where the HotJava browser programmed entirely in Java 1.1, could not compete with regular win32 C based apps. because of performance issues. By the way back in the days of Intel Pentium 66 with the floating point math hardware bug and 486DX2-66's, performance was so slow, that you had to downgrade to Netscape 1 on 2 from Netscape 3. because of performance issues. But Netscape 3 did bring along java plugins. and the ability to play online games like games.yahoo.com Chess. Go. Backgammon. various card games. I spent hours on games.yahoo.com, in java. But back then java was an entirely different beast - the performance and complexity sacrifice was accepted over the benefit of platform neutrality and security. A lot of it came down to file sizes. The original java plugin did not even as a plugin dll, but separate code. and I could not find the file sizes on line for the bundled java, so I went and installed Netscape Navigator 3.04 on this computer and here are the file sizes, in bytes, not KB or MB:

      C-Program Files-Netscape-Navigator-Program
      DIR Java
      DIR PLUGINS
      2,994,688 netscape.exe (that is, 3MB, huge file size at the time of 8MB system memory)
      233,984 jrt32301.dll (233KB) (this might mean java run time plugin)
      92,160 pr32301.dll (92KB)
      50,038 NETSCAPE.HLP
      9,216 uni3200.dll
      5,402 NETSCAPE.TLB
      93 netscape.lck

      C-Program Files-Netscape-Navigator-Program-Java-Bin (this is what you care about, look at these file sizes)
      129,024 awt32301.dll (129 KB)
      90,112 jit32301.dll (90 KB)
      7,168 mm3230.dll (7 KB)

      C-Program Files-Netscape-Navigator-Program-Java-Classes (and this one)
      718,296 java_301 (718 KB)

      C-Program Files-Netscape-Navigator-Program-Plugins
      225,792 NPAUDIO.DLL
      1,162

    6. Re:H1-B and outsource are responsible for this by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      If H1-B spoke their mind like I do, they'd be out of a job and back on the boat in no time. H1-B is willing to do the stupid things it's ordered to do by his slave masters.

    7. Re:H1-B and outsource are responsible for this by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      By the way here is a screenshot of Netscape Navigator 3.04 still running fine on the computer, but barely crawling around on the Internet in 2014. http://imgur.com/i9WtAK2

      PS. By luck I happened to capture Winamp at 108 and 42.

      108 = 1^1 * 2^2 * 3^3 and it's a magical number used as the number of beans on a Buddhist rosary for Om Mane Padme Hum. That beats the Catholic rosary of 5*10 Hail Mary's + 5 * Our Father's + 4 * Intro ~ 60 Items.

      And for 42 (101010 in binary) see http://www.independent.co.uk/l... I first learned about it in a linux MOTD. See customizing MOTD's with BOFH excuses, such as shown at http://www.linux.com/learn/tut... and http://bofh.ntk.net/BOFH/ .

      PS.PS. I wish XP had a similar option, that instead of a graphical logon, you could log in to pure DOS, like in the Win95 days, and type Win to get into the GUI, but when you exit to console, it would remove the GUI processing overhead and leave you with something very minimum and text like, that would work well for things like a cashier machine. But that's what linux is for. Or used to be until they got it too complicated. In any case, I still can't find a selection of speedy and user friendly apps for linux (or even newer versions of Windows) comparable to what's available for XP. Security is an issue, but with Zonalarm killing everything including ctfmon and whatnot. it's halfway manageable. It's still a busy process with frequent XP reinstalls for any Internet connected devices. If you can afford not to connect something to the Internet, like a workstation made to create music or CAD or read offline pdf files off a portable disk, you don't have to constantly reinstall. But that's what my reinstall computer looks like, and I can't really replace it with anything Linux has to offer for now, on the app and feature part. I mean Konqueror 3.5.10 had features better than Windows Explorer. but it plain sucks in copy speed, and qt4 and 5 based stuff is even worse, and it has weird features I don't like. And I got Super Flexible File Synchronizer for the deficiencies that Windows Explorer or Windows Backup lacks for backing up the data like an emusic mp3 or downloaded ebook pdf to a portable disk, right before a wipe and reinstall. Now wait til Microsoft buys Super Flexible, and messes it up too. But they do have. or used to have some really good software. Like I'd put MS Office 97 with sp1+sp2 on this computer if I did not constantly wipe and reinstall it. as Office Excel is better than the Works Spreadsheet that does not allow you to bang up some VBA macros to massage your data. But I find that I don't need macros most of the time, so it's not worth the bother.

    8. Re:H1-B and outsource are responsible for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Pentium 66 was using upwards of 64 MB SDRAM, not 8 MB SIMMs. Get your history straight.

    9. Re:H1-B and outsource are responsible for this by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Yup - I'm fully familiar with state government mandates alone that would make you want to scream. In one job I worked in I had to coach the liaison to the state legislature so we in the I.T. unit might get a head up when something major was going down. Had him nicely trained too - I'd get at least a weeks notice before we had to get something mandated by the idiots and morons in the legislature programmed or working on our systems.

  25. Speaking Truth To Power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    A: Five. One to change the bulb and four more to chase off the Californians who have come up to relate to the experience.

  26. Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they read the EULA.

  27. An Oregonian by meerling · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm an Oregonian, and there has been very little information about what actually happened other than the corporate/govenment spin weasels point fingers and whining about the other guy.

    To be honest, our state can certainly screw up just like all the rest and on various levels. Just google Dynamite Whale for one example.
    On the other hand, my experiences with Oracle and what I've heard from other people that had to deal with them, are far less than stellar.

    Right now I'm betting some politician made some stupid mistakes that Oracle didn't bother to even attempt to correct because all they could see was $$. Which of course was compounded by Oracle then going on in a slipshod milk the government cash cow way. The end result being this F-N mess.

    How to recover from this? Honestly, I don't really know, especially because we haven't been told what the exact problems are with the system. Sure, we've been told lots of the symptoms, but not the actual problems. (The difference between someone saying my car makes this "kchunk-wnnnng noise", vs "my car's timing belt is slipping".)
    One suggestion that might be necessary is to throw out the old code, and go talk to someone with a good working version and license that one for a reasonable fee then rebrand and localize it. (Maybe Kentucky's version.) And no, a reasonable fee isn't what they paid for it if it's something they had developed. Maybe there are other states with lousy versions, and they could all license a good working version. It would sure as hell simplify things going forward for all of them.

  28. Re:Good answer! Fraud is their main source of prof by Doomsought · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see the correlation with moving targets and whether the project originated from the military itself (discretionary spending) or originated from congressional mandate. A few other variables to measure congressional micromanagement would probably make for a very interesting regression line.

  29. Re:Good answer! Fraud is their main source of prof by Tom · · Score: 2

    Apparently the major profit center for companies like Oracle is being late and more expensive than predicted.

    This 100 times. I am amazed again and again that big government projects are almost guaranteed to be over budget and late, and I don't mean 10% in either case. After having this 5000 times, which idiots write the contracts that still don't contain massive penalties for those cases? Grab them by the balls when they promise you the heavens and tell them to deliver or shut up.

    Nothing short of corruption can explain this, because I refuse to believe that someone can be this stupid and at the same time still remember how breathing works.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  30. Java by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 0

    Can we sue oracle for a shitty Java? If only...

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
  31. Big Companies and Government Contracts by trout007 · · Score: 2

    What you get with Big Companies is lots of Lawyers. There is more money to be made doing exactly what the contract says then doing the job correct. If you do exactly what you are asked to do in the worst way possible you get paid once to do this and keep getting paid to support and modify.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Big Companies and Government Contracts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you get with Big Companies is lots of Lawyers. There is more money to be made doing exactly what the contract says then doing the job correct.

      If you don't do what the contract says, you can get sued for breach of contract. Look it up.

  32. Re:Good answer! Fraud is their main source of prof by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "... a recent General Accounting Office report on U.S. military equipment procurement concluded that only 1% of major military purchases involving high technology were delivered on time and on budget."

    That book says the problem is due to a sociological mistake. My understanding is that it is entirely intended, a way of making money from the largely hidden military purchases of the U.S. government. For the U.S. government, killing people is an enormous, extremely profitable business.

    The book is wrong, it isn't a "sociological mistake." The problems tend to come from changing requirements (from the gov and events), under bidding (by the company), stop and start funding and various directives (from the Congress), legal challenges from the losing competitors, and the nature of the procurement system.

    And no, killing people is not "an enormous, extremely profitable business" for the government. It is quite the opposite.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  33. Re:Too many big O's by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    That is "Really Big-O" notation, to which you can add, "Oh no!"

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  34. Yacht pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much of a ship can uncle Larry buy for $220 million? I bet a nice one with big sails, crows nest and working cannons.

    Arrr mates.. raise the blue peter and set sail for fail

    1. Re:Yacht pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Larry is beyond that, he's now in the market for tropical islands with five star resort hotels and championship golf courses.

  35. Oregon IT mgmt was great by cstec · · Score: 1

    As a consultant I worked on Oregon's Medicaid system, directly with Oregon senior IT management. It was the first government work I'd done after swearing I never would again 20 years previous, for reasons many are familiar with.

    It was shocking; those folks were top notch! No drama, no politics, no crap - just smart people who came to work to get things done, and did it well. I actually looked forward to meetings with the Oregon team because they were that sharp.

    I can't say how many of those people might be there now, but knowing them they would have managed their successions too. If those folks think Oracle failed, not only did Oracle probably fail hard, but they will have that fail documented, down to every dotted i and crossed t. Those folks should have been working in the valley.

  36. Correction: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    I should have said, "an enormous, extremely profitable business for those who control the government".

    1. Re:Correction: by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      That still doesn't get you where you want to go since corporations don't "control" the government. Politicians are still voted into office by voters, not corporations.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:Correction: by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Now you're catching on.

  37. Re:Experience with Kynect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll "third" it. My wife needed to use Kynect when I retired. At first there were several bumps. Eventually she was put into contact with a "manager" who looked at the system output for her case, said "nope, not your fault, that looks like a system error", and promptly while my wife was on the telephone with her, over-rode the system to correct it. Things have been fine since.

    I suspect Kentucky isn't rich or pretentious enough to try to do everything Oregon might. For development work, it's not a bad mindset.

  38. Blame the cook, not the oven. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oracle is just a DB. In a website built over a database, the database is just a tool, you can hardly blame it for anything.

  39. Authority grant by mveloso · · Score: 1

    If Oracle doesn't have the authority to compel teams of government employees to finalize their requirements, then they by definition Oracle isn't running the project.

  40. Re:Good answer! Fraud is their main source of prof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even when Governments see it coming, and try to get out, they still get bent over.

  41. Re:Good answer! Fraud is their main source of prof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oracle has tons of military contracts. You don't have to only make fighter jets or oil wells to get military contracts.

  42. ORACLE FRAUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ORACLE shut down AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES Sonoma CA campuses while we tried to untangle the mess they gave us.

  43. Speaking as someone who works in IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We are currently in our own form of Oracle hell the higher ups bough into to this new oracle "Solution" for a problem we have (being incidentally vague because i know people at my office read Slashdot) Is causing some of us to pull our hair out. Its truly a fix 1 bug create 3 more type problems over and over. If its not feeding garbage data into our other systems its eating it own tail and corrupting data (Thank goodness for good backups).

  44. why sue the execs? by belmolis · · Score: 1

    Can anyone explain why Oregon is suing six executives as well as the company itself? Normally in such commercial litigation it is only the company that is liable, not individual employees, and if Oregon thinks that the executives went beyond the pale, you'd expect criminal charges. Furthermore, the executives presumably don't have enough assets to contribute substantially to the damages sought. So why are the executives defendants?

  45. Re:Good answer! Fraud is their main source of prof by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

    And no, killing people is not "an enormous, extremely profitable business" for the government. It is quite the opposite.

    Killing people - not so profitable. Threatening to kill them - very profitable. That's where the power is at. Things are the way they are because most people support men with guns making it that way.

  46. Re:Experience with Kynect by buybuydandavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Manual overrides are key to most designs, particularly in new systems.

    It's not going to all work perfectly. Not gonna happen. Make sure a person can brute force a solution. You can automate more when the requirements are better understood, and have stabilized.

    The goal should be a *process* that works, whatever the tech, and that includes *people*.

  47. Confused by h8sg8s · · Score: 1

    Larry was heard laughing and saying "Oregon confused selling with delivering.."

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
  48. Re:Good answer! Fraud is their main source of prof by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    In the US the public is armed, and the government doesn't threaten to kill the public. Things are the way they are because of laws.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  49. Re:Good answer! Fraud is their main source of prof by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

    Every law is an implicit threat of violence, backed by guns.

  50. Re:Good answer! Fraud is their main source of prof by Tom · · Score: 2

    Because instead of holding corporations to their promises and showing them who owns the tanks, governments in the west have spent the past 10 years selling themselves to the cheapest bidder, with treaties allowing corporations to sue governments if they dare pass laws that impact profits.

    Sometimes I wish we had a king with a big ego, who'd on as much as the proposal of such a treaty arrest all those corporate bigshots and hang them publicly.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  51. Big Vendors Poor Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work in healthcare IT and without a doubt I can honestly say that the bigger the vendor, the shittier their product. My health system is implementing 3M Computer Assisted Coding. It's been a nightmare with the vendor telling us that they support various versions of IE, but really only support the latest and greatest (which until this last version of EPIC we couldn't move to). They can't get their interfaces correct and our in-house written bridge from our digital document storage system to their system has been a pain in the ass to write because they keep leaving out little "gotchas" on their HL7 specifications.

    This has been the same damn thing with Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and hell even Cisco has fucked us once or twice. One thing I can't help but notice is that all of these companies share one thing: they've outsourced their support and they're focusing on cheap rather than quality.

  52. But the private sector is the most effcient! by plopez · · Score: 1

    That those lazy expensive in-house government employees. The invisible hand fairy ensures that Oracle and other contractors is the best way to get work done. Right? Right?

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  53. Re:Good answer! Fraud is their main source of prof by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Not really, no. At least not in the US.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  54. Re:Good answer! Fraud is their main source of prof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations play the system. But to shift a bit of the blame back to the customer, with some projects government bureaucrats constantly change their ill-thought-out requirements, meaning the client has to redo everything.

  55. Is that the same Oregon IT I know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had no contact with the Care Oregon people, but my 20-plus years of contact with State Department of Human Services (DHS) IT management (as a contractor to local governments) has shown me just the opposite. Over that time what I observed was a massive NIH complex that can reasonably be described as arrogant, paired with equally massive incompetence.

    Their trail is littered with failed projects. For example, look at Oregon Pathways, with which I was closely involved in its early stages. Pathways spent more than $500k and actually won national awards for excellence--without producing more than a mocked-up demo. Lots of time and money sent swirling down the drain.

    Better still, look at a project that actually was built and is in use today: Oregon Access. It was conceived in the 1990's by DHS as a PC-based (Sybase/Powerbuiler) replacement for mainframe systems used to administer Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. It also was intended to give local governments that do the actual case work extensive 'access' to client data in the system for their own use in management--hence the project name. The first parts of the system were put into production use in the late '90s (I worked on some local-gov installs).

    The first casualty occurred early on and it was. ironcally, access. Only one county (Lane) was able to connect to the system before direct database access was eliminated, so that only the inteface devloped by DHS could be used. The mainframes never were replaced, so the poor users had to learn two systems: Windows-based Access and text-based mainframe running in a terminal emulator (later replaced by an IE6-only Web interface).

    My view of Access was from the user end. A substantial amount of my business came from developing software for users that filled gaps in Access. For example, Medicaid-funded Adult Protective Services. State management decided that they needed extensive statistics that Access did not provide. Their solution was simple: tell the local offices to generate it themselves. I was engaged by one to develop a database application that would enable them to do that. Plus, we added such obvious things as searching cases by name so they could get a case number--which was the only way to find a case in Access! (When, a few years later, that unit was transferred to the State, they killed the application so that the work had to be done by hand.)

    For the user, Oregon Access is a nightmare. Consider this page of case management tools for APD (Aging and People with Disabilites) staff. I particularly like the 191-slide Powerpoint stack that explains the "basics" of using just the client assessment portion of Access. And note the PDF forms that have to be filled out and emailed to Salem.

    Better still are the forms (not seen there) that are generated from within Oregon Access using internal data, which are then printed by the case manager and faxed or mailed (USPS) to Salem, where they are processed by someone using Oregon Access. Duh. I can't tell you the hilarity that ensued when the local folks received notice of the State's response to complaints about this lunacy: install a "Print to file" printer and PDF-conversion software, then for each use of a form, go through the many-step process of printing, converting, and attaching it to an email instead of fax or surface mail. Problem solved!

    Now, Cover Oregon is a product of the Oregon Health Authority, which was split off from DHS. Bruce Goldberg, OHA director during this mess, was previously director of DHS. The evidence seems to refute the notion that all the incompetence of DHS was left behind when OHA branched off.

    My personal view is that this affair is nicely characterized by: "Incompetent Mark Meets Con Artist".

  56. what are good alternatives? by volvox_voxel · · Score: 1

    I've had bad experiences myself, though it's a field I have little interest personally. There seems to be a market opportunity.

  57. They shouldn't have gone with Oracle.... by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Oregon paid Oracle about $240.3 million for a system that never worked, the suit said.... seeking $200 million in damages.

    I don't know why the hell they went with Oracle.
    I'd have taken the job for $201 million dollars.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  58. wtf! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    >Oracle issued a statement saying the suit "is a desperate attempt to deflect blame from Cover Oregon and the governor for their failures to manage a complex IT project.

    When a client pays you sums of money that reach this proportion, you would think that they have 0 interaction to do, and would have 100% support of any type of situation possible.

    I developed softwares from a-z from start to finish including dev, deploy and support, and I can rest assured that a health care system should not cost this much, let alone give the client such limited service as to say they would still need to be interactive in the configuration, maintenance or deployment of the product.

    Oracle to me is the worst overpriced and underworking company out there, they beat IBM , Microsoft and any others for the amount of services provided for the amount they charge. Everyone knows (as a running joke) if you want to make money, get certified as Oracle pro, and you can charge limitless amounts of money...even though technically a MSSQL certified pro could easily surpass in knowledge or service what is offered by way of Oracle.

    I worked with Oracle recently and found a glitch in their new 12.0 version of a specific dll responsible for communicating in background...and saw a performance hit based on which version of the client connecting to the new 12.0 db. SO an older client 10.0 dll would not get same sql query execution time then a new client 12.0 dll. In the end, it was because they added new way of pooling queries being searched, and the indexing of the queries was taking longer with older dlls.

    I would think this one of those corrupted moves that force all companies to upgrade ALL Oracle components (instead of just a backend)..and get even more money.

    I really didnt like their product when compared to the ease of use and speed of dev. of MSSQL. All earlier features that Oracle was known for are now also available with MSSQL, so no more reasons to select Oracle at all..... they even just got around now (15 years after MS) of adding proper increment seeds to their tables....

    Overall again, dont like the product as it is way overpriced as all are finding out the hard way now...

  59. Re:Good answer! Fraud is their main source of prof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you been to the US, seen any US television, or read ANYTHING about the US in the last few years? Because it seems like you haven't and are just talking out your arse. Cops there are a constant threat of violence for any (or no) reason.