http://tinyurl.com/yrqmz
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
"Hans Forbrich" <forbrich_at_yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:U0i8c.6715$Ct5.64_at_edtnps89...
> Daniel Morgan wrote something from which I snipped:
>
> > Hans Forbrich wrote:
> >
> >>>That would kill it, or devalue it, for the same reason it has done so
> >>>with the OCP. Education needs to be for the pure purpose of education.
> >>>Not with an ROI attached: Something any unit of Oracle Corp. must, by
> >>>necessity, have.
> >>
> >> Are you implying that ALL cerification (CNE, CTT+, LPIC, MCSE ...) is
of
> >> no
> >> value, or just Oracle's? Or perhaps just corporate-sponsored (CNE,
CLE,
> >> MSCE ...)?
> >
> > Depends on how you define value. Here are some possibilities.
> >
> > 1. Value = Helps the certificate holder get a job
> > 2. Value = Proves to an employer the certificate holder has a skill set
> > 3. Value = Proves holder possesses a specific level of competency.
> >
> > If CNE, CTT+, LPIC, MCSE meet the first criteria then they have value.
> > My argument is that the OCP does not. Nor does it meet criterions 2 or
3.
> >
>
> I just wanted to confirm. It seemed that the argument against
certification
> had changed to "Education needs to be for the pure purpose of education.
> Not with an ROI attached" per your previous response.
>
> So I conclude your issue is not certification, but OCP.
>
> >
> >> There are other ways for Oracle to interact with post-secondary
> >> institutes, such as educational discounts on licenses, which would help
> >> more.
> >
> > Or at least as much. Amazingly Oracle has actually sent its license dogs
> > into major universities to argue licenses when the issue was not what
> > the school was using for its own administration but rather for teaching
> > students. Talk about an act of short-sightedness. One schools response
> > ... they stopped teaching the subject. <sarcasm> Well that certainly
> > helped Oracle's bottom-line </sarcasm>.
>
> I know. <SIGH!!!!!> I walk into the bookstore at the local, and
reasonably
> reputable, tech college (NAIT) and see nothing but SQL Server stuff, and
> one excessivly obsolete early-Oracle7 reference. Reason is simple -
they'd
> have to pay big-time for Oracle software. <ARGHHHH!>
>
> >>
> >> Isn't there an "Oracle myths" site somewhere? Or is that a myth?
> >
> > I know Tom Kyte has put together a presentation, I may have had a copy
> > at one time, on the subject of Oracle myths. It would be a good place to
> > start.
> >
>
> Excellent idea.
>
> >
> >> In Alberta's case, the problem is simply that the competition (MS) is
> >> perceived as much more attractive than Oracle strictly on a pricing
> >> basis.
> >
> > Which is amazing as the prices are effectively identical.
>
> Not really. MS uses the 'our EE is $x, their EE is a much bigger $y'
> argument. And customer management buys it. I've seen it in action!
>
> You have to realize the Alberta enterprise base only has a handful of >
> $500M companies. (And that's Canadian $). And the majority of those are
> either public sector (or recently dereg'd utilities) or US subsidiaries
> where the buying rules are predefined.
>
> The rest of the market is mainly under 200 employee, under $100M annual
> revenue. Not the best market for Oracle's traditional 'big fish, big
> deals' mentality.
>
> >
> >> Do we need any rules? Such as 'post reference where the error exists',
> >> and 'post why it's wrong'?
> >
> > I think references and/or examples are critical: Preferably demonstrable
> > proof.
> >
> >> And - are there any possible problems, such as legal implications to
> >> referencing specific books, etc.
> >
> > Last time I checked ... free speech was free speech. If anyone wants
> > to sue me for pointing out that you can use ORDER BY in a view ...
> > let them and their attack dogs try it.
> >
>
> My objective is to help people find these things quickly and understand
why
> they are a problem. Let's try this on for size:
>
> ------------
> a) Subject contains "MYTH:"
>
> b) Contents contain the following if possible:
>
> Synopsis or brief description:
> Submitted by (optional):
> Effective or first noticed in Oracle version:
> Wrong in OCP exams? (Y/N):
> Incorrect in the following documents:
> Proof (pref. SQL example):
> ------------
>
> (By keeping these as separate threads but using an easily identifiable
> subject, we can encourage followup discussions.)
>
> Comments?
> /Hans
Received on Wed Mar 24 2004 - 09:58:33 CST
