Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Is Oracle the worst-documented product of all time?

Re: Is Oracle the worst-documented product of all time?

From: Richard J Woodland <richwoodland_at_interfacefamily.com>
Date: 1997/07/17
Message-ID: <33CEE475.1296@interfacefamily.com>#1/1

I've used Oracle for a whole bunch of years, on a bunch of platforms. The documentation does suck! In their attempts to create a doc set that is platform independant, they often forget to document the parts that truly are platform-dependent (like the names of files, environment variable names, etc.).

After a few years, you get to know how their little minds work (scary, eh?), and suddenly the manuals seem a little better.

Still, it's a damn good database. Worth taking the time to learn.

Richard Burton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 11:19:51 +0100, Steve Phelan
> <stevep_at_no-spam.pmcgettigan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Andreas Dunker wrote:
> >
> >> That's the point! Support and Training is very good. That means:
> >> You buy a database for several thousand Dollars. And then you
> >> have to pay an extra amount, so that you can use the database.
> >> I've worked for several years with Informix. You can use it
> >> without an extra training - even if you are a beginner - with
> >> just the shipped manuals. But this is nearly impossible with
> >> Oracle.
> >
> >Thank goodness you are not working for my company (well, thankfully I
> >own it, and you wouldn't have got past the interview with this sort of
> >attitude...)
>
> That's ok Steve. You probably couldn't afford me anyway. <g>
>
> What exactly is wrong with this attitude anyway? I personally think
> Oracle's documentation is lousy and I cited numerous references to
> back up my impression. And every day I work with the system, I come
> across more examples of disorganization. Tolerating this isn't the
> mark of a 'good consultant.' Quite the contrary IMO.
>
> Here's another beautiful example: It seems that under NT, the
> 'init.ora' file is actually called 'initorcl.ora' even though within
> the file itself, it claims to be 'init.ora'! Why would they do this?
> It makes no sense!
>
> >Look, to get back to what we've been trying to tell you: Oracle is a
> >large and sophisticated product, so get some training and/or some
> >consultancy - it really won't kill you, take my word for it - and buy
> >the Oracle Press books (if you REALLY want to LEARN, that is?)
>
> I contend that the Oracle Press books are even worse than the online
> documentation - I've already cited examples of this. Your only
> argument is a blanket defensive posture.
>
> >Your one months experience of Oracle on your own with just the Oracle
> >Documentation CD ROM and no hardcopy manuals IS NOT ENOUGH ALONE for you
> >to be undertaking what you seem to be undertaking, an 'award winning
> >software developer' (your words, not mine) or not.
>
> In the case of Oracle, you may be right. In the case of just about
> any other software product or system I've ever experienced, from
> Novell, AutoCad, 3D Studio, C++, dBase, FoxPro, Clipper to Informix,
> Sybase, MS-SQL and others, this wouldn't be the case.
>
> >Now, which bit didn't you understand?
>
> The part about whether there is actually anything substantive which
> justifies your arrogance on this issue.
  Received on Thu Jul 17 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US