Re: [Help] Becoming a DBA - where to begin?

Hans Forbrich <forbrich_at_telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:<3E84CCC9.965FD2D7_at_telusplanet.net>...
> Joel Garry wrote:
>
> > > >Backups? Users do that, don't they? :-)
> >
>
> Nope. In an Oracle environment, the System or Data Admin does the backups. And the (hopefully infrequent)
> restores. In most non-Oracle environments I've seen, the no-one does backups because a) the data isn't worth
> restoring or b) while backups could be taken, nothing in the environment could possibly assist with a restore
> anyway.

I was near one non-Oracle environment a year or two ago, and overheard the HR person in a nearby cube talking on the phone to her support person. Trying to figure out where the time-card data had gone after MS went corrupt. In most non-oracle environments (and some Oracle!) I've seen, backups aren't taken because they don't know any better!

>
> > That is what we call "black humor." It is amusing when observed in a
> > cynical light. Like the movie "American Beauty," or most any Dilbert
> > cartoon. Often used by those in professions where horrible events
> > happen in order to depersonalize the events.
> >
> > As an Oracle professional I find Oracle horror stories very amusing
> > and informative.
>
> I know and concur ... The consistency of the belief that MS SQL Server only requires a part-time
> semi-DB-knowledgeable programmer to be around for the occasional work confirms the effectiveness of
> marketing. And it does give me many, many opportunities to go in as a consultant. Nevertheless I do
> alternate between amused and saddened (and I've been around this stuff since 1984, late Oracle v4.)

I briefly saw some V3... Oracle wasn't my first R db. I started on other R languages than SQL.

>
> > >
> > > BTW - is MSSQL the same as Microsoft SQL Server???? I don't remember the name changing.
> >
> > That's just an abbreviation I used, to avoid the temptation to use
> > nastier (and mostly unjustified) descriptions.
>
> Sorry - just my underhanded jab. I am totally sick and tired of people saying 'MS SQL' or just 'SQL' and
> implying (or even stating) that Microsoft created or owns the SQL language. So I jab at it; sometimes
> outright, sometimes (too) subtly. I guess everyone needs a hobby. Mine right now seems to be "using a
> variety of cynicisms to attempt to correct popular misconceptions about MS supremacy." (Just like Don Quixote
> "tilting at windmills").

Of course, Oracle didn't create it either, and some (like standards people, some SQL gurus) would argue strange things about Oracle, too. I still think SQL is being used for things so far from what it was designed for that it becomes inappropriate. Even the original SQL standard came from a thrown-together IBM doc.

To be probably less than clear, I'm not as anti-MS as I often explictly state I am, and I'm more pro-Oracle than some people might think from some of my posts(after all, it is my meal ticket). My purpose in criticizing either is meant to be constructive.

While I agree with your efforts on correcting MS misconceptions, I have seen it make a lot of inroads into former Oracle strongholds. And so, like with PC's 10-12 years ago, I finally have to admit it is usable in mid-sized business environments, shortcomings and all. In many smaller cases, more so than Oracle, particularly OTS (Off The Shelf) applications.

>
> /Hans

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
"We don't talk over the beginning of songs.  We don't talk over the
end of songs.  We must not be very good DJ's."  - Heard on local radio
station