Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: From ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L?

From: Kellyn Pot'Vin-Gorman <dbakevlar_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 03:02:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CAN6wuX01xAz-3puY=p_-WDOG98DbX7rLYnDH+C+_PWQn_iQPDw_at_mail.gmail.com>



You do realize the high percentage of dyslexia in IT are going to read that as “Oracle WTF” right? :)

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:53 PM Chris Taylor < christopherdtaylor1994_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> One thing I got from this thread is we also need a Twitter hash tag...
>
> #orclftw ?
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 12:22 PM Freeman, Donald G. CTR <
> donald.freeman.ctr_at_ablcda.navy.mil> wrote:
>
>> Tim, don't take it as a criticism. I've been following you since
>> Compuserve days. When I was just stumbling my way into Oracle you
>> answered one of the first couple of questions I asked about SQL language :D.
>>
>> Donald Freeman
>> Database Administrator
>> Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd.
>> Robin Hood Road (RHR) Facility, Norfolk, VA 23513
>> Telephone: (757)-852-7724 Commercial
>> Telephone: (717)-497-1037 Mobile
>> Telephone: (757)-852-7777 PMO-IT Help Desk
>> donald.freeman.ctr_at_ablcda.navy.mil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tim Gorman [mailto:tim.evdbt_at_gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 11:06 AM
>> To: Freeman, Donald G. CTR; ORACLE-L
>> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: From ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L?
>>
>> It was just an idea. Apparently not a good one.
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>>
>> On 3/16/18 06:49, Freeman, Donald G. CTR wrote:
>> > Things I learned from history: Just before things die they expand.
>> If I was just starting out I think I would be looking for an Oracle group
>> and not a database group. I think we would be better off staying as an
>> Oracle group. I'm pretty confident that whatever issue I have somebody
>> here knows the answer.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Donald Freeman
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
>> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Robert Freeman
>> > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 12:29 PM
>> > To: Tim Gorman; ORACLE-L
>> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: From ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L?
>> >
>> > Tim,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > My two cents… and of course, some of this depends on how much time you
>> really want to invest in all of this… J
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > There is a lot of benefit in maintaining the Oracle specific focus of
>> ORACLE-L:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > – Technology specific content means that there is less sifting
>> through the “cross-pollination” of topics to get to the technology specific
>> question you have. Purity is important I think.
>> >
>> > – I would suspect that technology specific lists will attract
>> those who specialize in those specific technologies. A pure stack is
>> probably likely to get more authoritive answers than a watered down stack.
>> >
>> > o I’ve seen technology neutral boards/lists often provide inaccurate
>> information posted by folks who are not spending a lot of time with the
>> technology they offer answers on. I think you would see a lot more “I
>> think” or “I guess” kinds of answers.
>> >
>> > o I’ve also seen technology neutral boards/lists have holy wars about
>> the various stacks, that are no fun. Granted, many of those threads
>> eventually get policed.
>> >
>> > – In many cases, standards, processes, terminology and other
>> things differ across stacks. This could confuse beginners. Things in the
>> Oracle world change fast enough – multiply that several times for each
>> additional stack you add to the mailing list.
>> >
>> > – You have beginners here often, and I’d be concerned that
>> cross-technology/stack posting could get confusing for them.
>> >
>> > – With all of the stacks, there is such depth and breadth that
>> I’d be afraid a less focused mailing list would become less useful.
>> >
>> > – A less focused technology list will be harder to search for the
>> answer you are looking for.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This reasoning extends to other active and emerging database stacks,
>> they should have their own lists.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Then the question that comes to my mind is, can we have our cake and
>> eat it too?
>> >
>> > Why not source, from these DB specific lists, a consolidated and
>> searchable list from all database specific lists? Something like DBALL-L. I
>> would think that it would be easy to automate the copying of threads to
>> such a list? This would be helpful for those who want to look for topics
>> related to more than one stack.
>> >
>> > I am debating if one should allow posts in the DBALL-L list… That would
>> require some level of moderation to ensure that posts don’t really belong
>> in a database specific list, though I do suggest a possible DBINTEGRATION-L
>> list that could be the place to post cross-platform questions.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Second, (just thinking aloud here) with respect to social media - Is
>> there some way that we can integrate lists like ORACLE-L into social media
>> platforms like twitter, facebook and linked in (and maybe that’s already
>> done in some way – I have largely removed myself from social media – I just
>> was finding the signal to noise ratio - inefficient)?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Is there some way to integrate the technologies so that we can actually
>> improve the usability of all of them? Perhaps such a thing is more effort
>> that it’s worth…. I just wonder if there is an ORACLE-L post, if there
>> should not be some related tweet that goes out to the ORACLE-L twitter
>> subscribers with maybe a subject and link to the post (just thinking aloud
>> here – there could be great arguments not to do this). Or a Linked in daily
>> post with the digest contents of Oracle-L…?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Along with ORACLE-L or MSSQL-L I think there is a good argument for a
>> few other lists? (depending on how many lists one wants to have/manage).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > For example:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > – DBALL-L – Integrated list of all *-L lists for those who love
>> super cross-pollination.
>> >
>> > – DBINTEGRATION-L - List services for those trying to integrate
>> stacks. I think such a list could certainly be cross-stack.
>> >
>> > – DBMIGRATION-L – List services for those migrating between
>> database stacks.
>> >
>> > – DBCLOUD-L – List services specific to database cloud offerings
>> >
>> > – DATASCIENCE-L – List services related to data science topics.
>> >
>> > – DBREPLICATION-L – List services related to replication services
>> like Golden Gate or Shareplex
>> >
>> > – DBRETIREEARLY-L – Self-explanatory – Currently among my
>> favorite list ideas.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I guess, in part, all of this really boils down to what is the need of
>> the community? What will drive them to use the tool that has been so
>> wonderful in the past – Namely Oracle-L.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > My thoughts…. VMMV….. Cheers!!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > RF
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Robert G. Freeman
>> >
>> > Deliverer of Data
>> >
>> > Businessolver
>> >
>> > Cell: 801-703-3405
>> >
>> > Anon: Science. If you don’t make mistakes, you’re doing it wrong. If
>> you don’t correct those mistakes, you’re doing it really wrong. If can’t
>> accept that you’re mistaken, you’re not doing it at all.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
>> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Stefan Knecht
>> > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:48 AM
>> > To: Tim Gorman <tim.evdbt_at_gmail.com>
>> > Cc: ORACLE-L <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>
>> > Subject: Re: From ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Personally, my vote would be oracle-only. Perhaps add a second list
>> maintained with the same style that is for other DBMS.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Zahir Mohideen <zahir.dba_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Tim -
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > it is a great idea to expand oracle_l to database_l .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > My question is , if we were to expand , are we restricting the
>> discussions to RDBMS only or include NOSQL dbs as well.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Usually , we ( I am also in SQL server side ) communicate in
>> Twitter with #sqlhelp tag .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > - Zahir
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Zahir Mohideen
>> > http://mfzahirdba.blogspot.com/
>> >
>> >
>> > Nothing so GREAT was achieved without enthusiasm
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Tim Gorman <tim.evdbt_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> So, of course, I ask Oracle people about it. :)
>> >
>> > This thread is a good argument for expanding ORACLE-L to
>> DATABASE-L.
>> >
>> > There is a vibrant technical community in SQL Server and
>> it is long past time that these communities cross-pollinated better.
>> >
>> > As this thread shows, it isn't that one or the other DBMS
>> is better, but they can be different in subtle ways which can trip up even
>> the most experienced of us.
>> >
>> > And, as this thread shows, many of us are tasked with
>> administering both DBMS packages, in addition to PostgreSQL and MySQL.
>> >
>> > I'm proud to cite my wife, Kellyn <http://dbakevlar.com/>
>> , as an example of this breed of renaissance geek, as she is currently
>> president of both the Rocky Mountain Oracle Users Group <http://rmoug.org>
>> and of the Denver SQL Server users group <http://denversql.org> , and
>> she is likely soon to become the first person in the world to achieve both
>> Oracle ACE Director (now alumnae) and Microsoft MVP recognition.
>> >
>> > One noticeable difference between the two communities is
>> age. On average, Kellyn and I find attendees at SQL Server users group
>> events to be about 10 years younger than Oracle users group events, based
>> on unscientific eyeball observation. Also, the SQL Server users group
>> community has a much larger percentage of women attendees and speakers
>> (i.e. about 40% for SQL to about 20% for Oracle).
>> >
>> > As a result, while the ORACLE-L list has been yakking
>> along happily here on email for the past 20 years, the SQL Server community
>> has been largely conversing on Twitter. Both communities blog at about the
>> same rate and volume (in my opinion), and both communities seem to use
>> LinkedIn to the same degree (in my opinion). So, the biggest difference in
>> online communication style seems to be email vs tweets.
>> >
>> > So, if we were to go through the effort of changing from
>> ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L (leaving aliases from ORACLE-L to point to
>> DATABASE-L so folks can still find us), we would find adoption by the SQL
>> Server community to be slow, because they would have a struggle paying
>> attention to, and responding to, a high-volume email list. There are
>> undoubtedly good ways to integrate email and Twitter, and I'm sure they can
>> be quite seamless, but the first question is: what do y'all think?
>> >
>> > How do you personally feel about discussing and learning
>> about SQL Server as well as Oracle? Would it enhance your prospects?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3/15/18 07:23, Rich J wrote:
>> >
>> > On 2018/03/15 07:34, Jeff Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > Brent is a friend and an ex-coworker. He
>> wanted to share the background of this customer's scenario, in case it
>> would help you with yours.
>> >
>> > I let Brent know some folks were
>> having...fun...with his take on autocommit.
>> >
>> > Jeff
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Heh heh heh, I can only imagine. The
>> difference on optimistic vs pessimistic concurrency nailed it though - the
>> default combo of optimistic & implicit transactions makes sense in Oracle,
>> and the default of pessimistic and automatic transactions makes sense in
>> SQL Server. It's when you change only one of those two settings that you're
>> screwed.
>> >
>> > The blog post stemmed from an app that
>> had been written by SQL Server people, and then an Oracle guy came in and
>> made a few changes. He switched to implicit transactions without
>> understanding that everybody was doing single-line inserts/updates all over
>> the place in code, not bothering to set transactions. He didn't understand
>> the impact of what he was doing. (Not an Oracle jab by any means - the guy
>> was well-meaning but just not prepared.)
>> >
>> > We got called in because performance went
>> straight into the toilet. Even worse, rollbacks were rolling back
>> completely unrelated transactions, and nobody knew why, hahaha.
>> >
>> > Ah, that context adds a lot to the assertion. I
>> still disagree that autocommit is a good practice for applications, whether
>> it's Oracle or SQL Server, but I understand where Brent's coming from.
>> >
>> > And my intent wasn't to have "fun", but a sanity
>> check for myself. IT changes constantly outside of my narrow focus, and as
>> I've been following Brent's blog for years, that entry offers an opinion
>> that is completely backwards of my understanding of how any modern RDBMS
>> should work.
>> >
>> > So, of course, I ask Oracle people about it. :)
>> >
>> > Thanks all for the sanity check!
>> > Rich
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --

[image: Kellyn Pot'Vin on about.me]

*Kellyn Pot'Vin-Gorman*
DBAKevlar Blog <http://dbakevlar.com>
President Rocky Mtn. Oracle User Group <http://www.rmoug.org/> President Denver SQL Server User Group <http://denversql.org/> about.me/dbakevlar

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Sat Mar 17 2018 - 04:02:25 CET

Original text of this message