Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: How to force two entities to point to the same lookup value

Re: How to force two entities to point to the same lookup value

From: joel garry <>
Date: 16 Aug 2006 14:56:01 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Bob Badour wrote:
> joel garry wrote:
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> >
> >>HansF wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:50:41 +0000, Bob Badour wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>It goes without saying that Tom Kyte says everyone should lock
> >>>>themselves permanently into Oracle solutions. Oracle pays him to say
> >>>>that,
> >>>
> >>>If you had a chance to meet Tom, you would probably retract that statement.
> >>
> >>I sincerely doubt that I would. I am sure he is a very pleasant man.
> >>Regardless of his natural inclination, which I am sure is equally
> >>pleasant, Oracle pays him to be pleasant as well.
> >>
> >>While I have no objection to the profit motive whatsoever, I equally
> >>have no compunctions about dismissing puffery as puffery.
> >
> > The thing about Tom is, he goes through the technicalities
> > point-by-point.
> Does he? What are the points he uses to demonstrate that folks should
> give his employer a monopolistic franchise over their business?

What a kooky thing to say! I mention technical and you morph it to monopoly?

> [snip]
> >>>As one who has met him and had several opportunities to chat ... I think
> >>>Oracle pays him BECAUSE he says those things. (Sort of a chicken-egg
> >>>issue, I guess.)
> >>
> >>How he arrived at the financial interest is irrelevant to my point.
> >>
> >>>A rarity, to be sure. And many who worship money foremost will never be
> >>>able to believe it.
> >>
> >>I am not sure what sort of point you are trying to make with your
> >>conclusion. Anyone who thinks I worship money would have to be daft or
> >>completely ignorant about me.
> >
> > Well, you implied it about Tom when you said Oracle pays him to say
> > things, and Hans seems to be pointing out you made the implication.
> > Since you made the implication, it's not a big leap to think you think
> > that way. Glad to know you don't.
> I don't recall implying it about Tom either. Nevertheless, his job is to
> promote Oracle products. It is in his interest and in his employers
> interest for others to lock themselves into Oracle products and out of
> competitor's products.
> Giving any company a monopoly on one's business is never in one's
> interest. Thus, he does not say these things for the benefit of those he
> convinces to lock in.

Your logic is severely distorted. You assert monopoly with no basis in fact or argument.

> None of the discussion initiated by the Oracle crowd or any of what
> followed did anything to address the original question. One can draw
> whatever conclusions one wants from that about how much the Oracle crowd
> care about what the original poster needs.

The obvious conclusion was that it was not an Oracle related question. I became involved in this thread when _you_ asserted puffery. Bullshit, and I called you on it.

> I see a knee-jerk reaction that defends their own turf while totally
> ignoring the original poster's question and dismissing his stated desires.

What did his desires have to do with cdos?

> > Yes, one should always look more critically upon those have a financial
> > interest. One should also not be too quick to dismiss those who do
> > have a financial interest, provided they show their work. That's Tom's
> > magic: he shows it all so anyone can try it, in terms that anyone can
> > understand and replicate.
> And what--succinctly--is the reason anyone should give Oracle a
> monopolistic franchise over their business?

Just to piss off kooks like you who bring straw men into usenet discussions.

What is your basis for claiming a monopolistic franchise? The environments I commonly work in use Oracle because it scales far better both in size and concurrency. The milieu is often quite pro-MS and anti-Oracle. Yet, even though the ERP vendor offers the product under other databases (and indeed, the product suffers for being written that way, and was originally not Oracle, and has its largest growth in MS-SQL), the larger customers use it. And for the little toys for the newbie MBA's to play with, they just suck into whatever ODBC product does what they want, which often means MS-SQL. Yeah, I said suck.

Name a market where Oracle has more than 50%. Some monopoly. CRM? SAP has 25%, Oracle has 6%. HCM? Oracle has 25%, SAP 21% ( BI? BO has 13.9%, Oracle has fifth place at 4%. DBMS? ERP? SAP 28%, Oracle 10% (more gartner).

Of course, some people might think all those numbers are bullshit too, but they are still a long way away from monopoly. And much as Bill and Larry might not like it, heterogeniety in databases within enterprises isn't going away.


-- is bogus.
Received on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 16:56:01 CDT

Original text of this message