Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam

From: Nuno Souto <>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:21:29 +1000
Message-ID: <>

Goulet, Richard wrote,on my timestamp of 6/07/2009 11:51 PM:

> it will hit the quote limit. But a lot of what you say was also held as
> true of the relational movement many years ago.

True. With one fundamental difference: the relational movement many years ago addressed the general purpose commercial IT market. Not specialized vertical markets like Google et all and merchant thingies-sorry-bankers.

This might come as a surprise to all the punters, but Google is NOT representative of general purpose IT, or general enterprise IT, not by a long shot and it won't be so for a long time.

They require a very specialized application of IT, what they do has no applicability whatsoever to mr Joe ITAverage.

> SQL promised something for everyone, namely a standard way of accessing
> data that more people could understand, something that Cobol also
> promised but missed the boat.

And in your opinion any of these "fast flat file systems" these people promote are a "standard way of accessing data"?

I think not. They are pure and simply a special case of a special application. By no means whatsoever are they general purpose or applicable to everyone.

Hence: not needed, and irrelevant.

> As for your companies decision to upgrade Notes vs. enter into
> one of the new CRM packages, bravo. If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it,
> assuming that's the direction you want to go in.

Actually, the direction is very simply: save money while providing a working solution. It's got nothing to do with "it ain't broke don't fix it". And it's exactly what the vast majority of enterprises out there do.

> PeopleSoft was a more intuitive and easier to use which lead to less
> training and consequently why we choose it.

Exactly. Technical considerations are not the only criteria for selecting products and solutions. Intuitive, ease of use - basically less training needed - is a MAJOR consideration.

So is: no need to hire tons of "duhvelopers".

Which is exactly why folks pick packages like Peoplesoft, instead of developing in-house: tremendously expensive.

> I think though that the bottom line these folks were really
> trying to make is that they want something that is fast, runs on
> commodity hardware, for commercial purposes, and is dirt cheap. The
> last point being the sticky one that none of the main stream database
> vendors has addresses appropriately.

Can we once and for all stop calling vertical solutions for a very restricted vertical market as representative or applicable of the general IT market?

Google et all and merchant (b)ankers are NOT traditional enterprises, and what they do with their IT is COMPLETELY outside of even the most basic attempt to classify them as general purpose.

Therefore, what might work for them does NOT, of necessity, fit everyone else: they are too small a market to even make an impression.

Why is this not clear and obvious I can't even fathom.

Nuno Souto
Received on Fri Jul 10 2009 - 03:21:29 CDT

Original text of this message