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: Bob Badour <>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:32:12 GMT
Message-ID: <gU7Fg.50903$>

joel garry wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:

>>joel garry wrote:
>>>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
>>>>>>>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
>>>>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
>>What a kooky thing to say! I mention the incentives an Oracle VP has for
>>getting people to give his company a monopolistic franchise over their
>>business, and you morph it into a technical discussion?
> I'll grant he has incentives, but you have a long way to go to show
> they make any difference or that he engages in puffery.  Are you
> claiming a technical discussion has no place here?  It's pretty nasty
> of you to accuse someone of puffery if it isn't true.

Are you suggesting there is anything illegal or morally wrong with puffery? Are you suggesting that an appeal to authority is somehow strong or stronger when one appeals to the authority of a shill?

>>>>>>>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.
>>Sorry. Monopolistic franchise is longer to type than monopoly. However,
>>locking one's company into a specific vendor does grant that vendor a
>>monopolistic franchise by artificially raising the barrier to entry for
>>the vendor's competition.

> Please define Monopolistic franchise.

I use the same one Warren Buffet does. For example, see:

   I can't see any of the common

> definitions fitting what Oracle does that doesn't describe every other
> vendor, including scale.  And I've previously given examples that
> indicate this barrier may exist only in your own brain.  I see
> non-Oracle database get data from Oracle every day.  What barrier?
> Standardization across an enterprise?

Did you bother to read what the original poster asked, how Morgan responded, or what was at the other end of the link he provided? Mindless idiot. ::rolls eyes::

>>>>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.
>>What, other than puffery, has any of the Oracle crowd provided to the
>>original poster? Did any of them address his questions? Did any of them
>>post anything other than puffery? If so, I didn't see it.

> Now you are accusing me of puffery?  I'd swear in several languages if
> I knew how.

Go ahead if makes you feel better. Are you, by any chance, confusing puffery with buggery? While they have similar poetic meter, they are quite different as far as accusations go.

>>>>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?
>>cdos? I am not sure what that is. Are you suggesting the oracle crowd's
>>reaction to the original poster's question was helpful to anybody or was
>>anything other than a knee-jerk reaction to defend their turf?

> So.... you're a newbie to usenet?  That explains a lot.

Your answer explains a lot. Had you referred to cdom, I would have known what you meant. Since neither I nor the original poster posted anything to c.d.o.server, your demand or expectation for relevance to cdos strikes me as just a tad psychotic.

The original poster's desires (er, well at least the desires he wrote about in his post) don't have anything to do with asb either. Neither do his desires have much to do with late blight, cartoon geckos or frangible woozle muffs.

>>>>>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
>>Straw man? I am replying to the actual content DA Morgan and Sybrand
>>Bakker wrote. How is that a straw man? They reinforced that content by
>>citing a shill for Oracle.

> monopolistic franchise has nothing to do with anything posted before
> you posted it.

It has everything to do with SDO and with Morgan's suggestion to the original poster to ignore his reservations about diving into anything vendor-specific. Morgan's recommendation was quite different from oh, let's say a suggestion to use Oracle's 'connect by' syntax in those rare situations when a transitive closure is really useful.

>>The original poster asked some very specific questions regarding
>>integrity enforcement. DA Morgan ignored those questions and supplied a
>>link to something apparently irrelevant with no explanation of the
>>relevance other than the original poster should use it to lock himself
>>into an Oracle solution after all--contrary to his explicitly stated
>>>What is your basis for claiming a monopolistic franchise?
>>Did you bother to read what DA Morgan suggested? Or what the original
>>poster asked? Mindless idiot.

> Sorry, I don't find the suggestion to use something one already has to
> have anything to do with locking in to anything or monopolies.

Drug dealers hand out free samples. Your point?


> Daniel just plain goofed and suggested an inappropriate answer - I
> don't see any evil there.  I do see misinformation in what you spout,
> that's why I responded to that.

Your opinion on what is information vs. misinformation would be a whole lot more credible if you were not exhibiting quite so many hints of psychosis.

   I didn't have anything in particular
> to respond to the OP, so I didn't. That makes me mindless?

No, your knee-jerk reactions that demonstrate little or no comprehension of what was previously written make you mindless.

   If you see
> monopolistic franchise in the OP, you are just insane. I suggest >

I don't see it in the original post. Actually, I see the opposite there. In the original post, I see someone who has a specific question related to referential integrity and who is concerned about cross-vendor portability.

Morgan's knee-jerk reaction to pooh-pooh the original poster's concerns about cross-vendor portability and to suggest he base his entire solution on a set of Oracle-specific stored procedures and on an Oracle-specific design bearing precious little resemblance to what the original post described, on the other hand, strike me as a prescription to give Oracle a monopolistic franchise over the original poster's future business.

While Morgan's response includes the knee-jerk reasction I describe, the one thing it lacks (in stark contrast) is an answer to the original question. Received on Thu Aug 17 2006 - 19:32:12 CDT

Original text of this message