> A simple Google search for how Oracle extorted $150M USD from the State of Oregon and flat out lied to them about their implementation services should provide all you need to know about how Oracle treats its customers.

I did that simple Google search. I read that Oregon demanded to own the project coordinator role, with ultimate authority, and only hired Oracle for labor and machines, against Oracle's advice, and then failed to actually hire an individual to fill that role. Oracle's hands aren't clean here, but don't whitewash Oregon's obvious screw ups.

Oracle claimed to be providing a team of software engineers who were coding Oregon's state exchange. Oracle was much more than a vendor, it was a service provider.

Oracle executives flew out to Oregon 3 times, and on each occassion, made presentations that said the exchange was "72% done" and that if they would just wire them 53 million USD, everything would be done on time.

These were clear and deliberate lies, and as taxpayers, one should feel personally robbed by Oracle, regardless of the State of Oregon's overseeing the project.

IBM is another monster delivering jack squat for big dollars. Canada spent over $1B CAD on a deployment with them for a new payroll system and ended up with diddly squat for that much taxpayer dough.

https://www.pymnts.com/news/b2b-payments/2018/ibm-canada-pay...

I couldn't agree with you more. These companies have become such a terrible value for consumers that they have to abuse the public trust and effectively win business through lobbying and nepotism.

And lots of golf.

I dont know. From what I know from inside automotive, the IT departments there are buying new compute clusters about every second year.

After they make their requirements public usually a few companies show interest. The companies swear by their techs and claim it tested for requirements, yet almost always this new company have to back up after they prove themselves unable to keep up to their promises.

The IBM was the one delivering past several years of compute hardware, while other companies were just not able to do the same.

Claiming whole corp is rubbish because you know of one case where it didnt work out seems not right here.

Remember the old adage, nobody ever got fired for buying <x> or in this case IBM.

It's enough to see how they're killing Java's ecosystem, moving to the 6-months release cycle.

There's still a huge amount of companies / public businesses running software based on Java 5 or 6 out there, just saying..

That's partly on companies too. The fact that software marches forward has been clearly understood for decades and keeping things updated should be part of IT/Dev responsibilities, not something put off forever.