Re: standard database programming language

I'll answer that.

Billy Verreynne wrote:

>Well, my approach is fun. Even my wife says that I'm not better than a
>kid at times. :-)
>

Not a chance I'll disagree with your wife. ;-)

>Simple example. You get a call from a client with a problem. It is
>outside their SLA with you. You fix the problem. It is a 10 minute
>job. You do it via dialup to a toll free number. The cost to you - 10
>minutes of your time. The same amount of time it takes you to sit on
>the throne while paging through the latest copy of the Oracle Mag. ;-)
>
>Do you charge them for an hour's worth of work using very expensive
>non-contractual rates? Or do you tell them that it's on the house and
>done with pleasure?
>
>That is where I start to draw the line between a cold and ruthless
>business approach and a professional one, based on personal integrity.
>

The answer to this question has nothing to do with integrity or cruelty to small animals. My SLA
takes into account the fact that I can not stack up work such that all 8 hours in each business day
is billable. So I have two choices. I can either increase my bill rate per hour to cover the down-time,
so for example I charge $100/hr for 8 hours of work and $200/hr. for half-days (assuming the other
half will be non-productive) or I charge a fixed annual contract and let the chips fall where they may.

My agreement with my customer is done by mutual consent .... not threat and intimidation. Hopefully
at the end of the day ... we are both happy that we got exactly what we expected.

>>>Look at OpenGL and Microsoft and what happened there. Look at Java and
>>>Microsoft. Look at the Glide API and 3Dfx.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I've looked. What am I supposed to be seeing?
>>
>>
>Along came DirectX's Direct3D API. Not only making 3Dfx a distant
>memory, but also deliberately screwing the OpenGL standard.
>

And the consumers all voted with their credit cards. Case closed. Marketers 1 consumers 0.

>>Of course there are. There are numerous examples of genocide too. But
>>that doesn't make every death an international war crime.
>>
>>
>
>Of course not. But then what else do you expect when I make sweeping
>statements? Sheez! :-)
>

An acknowledgement that you made sweeping statements. :-)

>>And who put a gun to the developer's heads and forced them to to use the
>>proprietary API? Consider
>>that maybe they did so, for whatever misguided reason, because they saw
>>an advantage in doing so.
>>
>>
>
>It is not that simple. In the case of OpenGL and Microsoft, Microsoft
>withdrew from the OpenGL Standards Committee. They stopped 1st level
>support and intergration of OpenGL with Windows. Why? Why when they
>*supported* OpenGL in the beginning and sung its praises? Because it
>made more sense to have a proprietary graphics API.
>
>OpenGL is better than Direct3D. Hell, John Carmark showed that.. using
>a *subset* of the OpenGL API (aka miniGL) instead of Direct3D.
>
>Still - you want to release a 3D graphics app. What do you do? Select
>OpenGL or Direct3D? Which one is the one that the operating system
>vendor will bent backwards to support? Which one not?
>
>Remember what happened in Windows 3.1 when DR-DOS was released? You
>will be silly not to select Direct3D if your product is going to be
>Windows based.
>

Take a good look at who the general public puts into office as its leaders. It is these same people
making equally ludicrous decisons with their credit cards as they make in the voting booth. What
it proves is that most people can be led by slick advertising. Nothing else.

So as long as people are willing to let sound bites replace reasoned argument. Are willing to follow
the masses rather than using their own brains. This is what you get. Does anyone truly believe Windows
today is better than a Mac was five years ago? Does anyone truly believe Apple will survive long term?

>My points are simply this.
>
>One. Logic tells me that a company will not incorporate an open
>standard or open source language or whatever into their core product,
>without that making darn good business sense to do it. (i.e. Oracle
>implementing an open standard stored proc language versus Oracle
>adding Java to their core product - one make bussness sense, the other
>not)
>

I wouldn't expect it to be any other way. And that is what cynicism is truly about.

>Two. The cynical side of me says that when it does make business
>sense, some companies (like Microsoft) will purposefully change that
>implementation in such a way to lock the developer into that specific
>implementation.
>

That's not cynical. That is their ethical duty to their stockholders. If they did anything else they would
deserve to be thrown out by the Board of Directors for not doing their best to maximize stockholder
value. It would, in fact, be a criminal act in some jurisdictions.

>Do I accuse Oracle of point one? Yes. Of course.
>

Take out the loaded word "accuse" and I would think you'd get universal agreement.

>Do I accuse Oracle of point two? Nope - I have not seen any evidence
>to point to that. But I have seen it industry.
>
>--
>Billy
>
>

When the time comes I wouldn't expect Larry and his executive team to act any other way. I see this as a refusal, not yours personally so don't misunderstand my intent here, to shift the blame. You want to hold Bill Gates
personally responsible for the fact that consumers are dolts. It doesn't wash. If the consumers were to make
a comparison of dot net to Java and refuse to buy the dot junk Microsoft would dance to a different tune. But
what truly is happening is that Bill says "jump" and they ask "how high?" And there are a lot of people running Linux out here right now that will agree with me. One does not need to be a victim of the marketing wars.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)