Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Robert Banker <rob_banker_at_mindspring.com> wrote in message news:7hkspj$u73$1_at_nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Not that anyone asked, but I'll throw my two cents in--

Hey, welcome. I thought for a moment nobody was listening!

> Five years is an eternity to support a product. I just left a position
>snip...
> order to continue supporting a product, you have to keep a development
> environment avavilable, as well as keep people trained on features that may
> no longer exist and are no longer relevant. It's not economically feasible
> to perpetually support a product that no longer provides a revenue stream.
>

Sure it is not economically feasible to perpetuate the support of a product. But 5 years is not forever, no matter what the MS drivel may say about "growth of market" and such crap. Of course, when a company makes a living of giving a product away for free, it makes it VERY HARD to cost justify ANY support for ANY release older than 5 minutes...

>
> I don't think anyone (with the exception of the most naive) are claiming
> that there is no need for advanced expertise on Microsoft products.

Well, then WHY IS IT THAT MS keeps telling us having advanced expertise in competing products (and their own) is "bad client strategy? That is EXACTLY what they say when they sell their "NT/SQLServer is simple to use, you save on support costs because you don't need experts to develop and run these systems" drivel!

Source? Read ANY of the announcements by MS re NT and SQLServer. Particularly when they talk TCO. It's always: "you need experts to run UNIX systems, with NT any dumb user can do it". Or words to that effect.

Question in anyone's mind of course is: why do I need MCSE's and all the 3rd party and MSDN paraphernalia that goes with a NT SQL Server solution? Isn't it supposed to be SOOOO easy? Where is my saving?

> I don't care how user-friendly a product claims to be. If you don't have
people
> available who understand the inner workings of a product, the product will
> fail.

Amen.

> As someone who has chosen to make my living off of the Microsoft
> machine, I appreciate their level of disclosure about the wrinkles in their
> products in tools such as the MSDN. It is an essential part of my daily
> work. For better or worse, Microsoft has chosen to tackle a broad range of
> technologies. Just like the rest of us, their people are struggling to keep
> abreast of the technologies that we are. Imperfection is inevitable. It's
> not an excuse for them to produce crappy products, of which I think there
> are few. For every MS product that I don't like, there are generally
> several that are outstanding.

Amen. Great truth. Note that my bone is not with anybody from the technical side of MS or their support to developers. Heck, I'm one myself and I reckon they are GREAT.

My bone is their predatory marketing and business practices and the crap they put out. And the work I HAVE TO DO MYSELF in MS sites to convince users and managers that things aren't that easy. In real life, somewhere, somehow, someone needs to ACTUALLY SIT at a desk and DO some REAL administration and tuning of MS systems.

Try to explain this to a site that has just bought on the "all is easy and rosy in the NT/SQL Server world" and the "we'll save you millions by not having to have anybody here doing any serious technical work".

> I know of no real developer, including myself, who's going to be satisfied
> working for a company who's not innovating. I have a short attention span.

Yeah, sure! <G> Same here. But do NOT confuse innovating with renovation. Ie, an IT company should be producing new and better products. But they need not re-tool for every single one of these new products. That is one of the MAJOR advantages that the computer software industry has, compared to any other industry: they all need to re-tool for new production. We do not.

Correction: we DID not. With all this rigmarole of new versions and "paradigm shifts" and "technology revolutions" every 6 months, we software developers are now in need of upgrading every single one of our tools, starting with compilers and basic development tools, before we can even contemplate coming out with a new software idea. And I'm not even including the re-training. THIS IS LUDICROUS. The only single biggest advantage of the computer software industry versus other industries is GONE. For the sake of the "expanding and growing market". Let me tell you something: without a healthy and constantly growing 3rd party software industry, there WON'T be ANY growth. And there WON'T be a healthy 3rd party industry soon if this state of affairs continues. Oh sure, there will be LOTS of startups... As I said before, they are NOT the "market".

> idiots, then I've got a few other conspiracy theories for you. It's people
> like me who not only want the new stuff, but demand it. I might not be
> using every feature all the time, but it's nice to know it's there if I want
> it.

Of course it's nice to have it available. WHEN we NEED it, then we'll pay for it. But I object to having to pay through my nose to have something that I have no need for NOW being thrown down my throat, like it or not.

> recommend it for a project. I am not willing, however, to risk my
> professional reputation on technological religious wars. If it's the right
> tool, I will use it. That goes for NT, Linux, Mac OS, whatever. Anyone who
> does otherwise takes a huge risk. And you're right, the 'Buy IBM' argument'
> does not apply. There are too many other choices out there.

Amen. Can't agree with you more. That's what it's all about: choice. Take it away and you take the market away. IBM found that out the hard way back in the 80's. Just when they thought all rivals were gone and they had ALL the mainframe market, BANG! There goes the market.

Why wasn't I surprised? WHO in his right mind is gonna buy equipment from a monopoly and bet their long term business plan on supply from this monopoly? Ergo, no market!

> them for altruism. That's not what business is about. Business is about
> building a product that people will use before they use your competitors.

And SELLING it. And hopefully make a profit. That is NOT what MS is doing with IE, they are giving it away for FREE. That is NOT business! And they are not a charity either, as you well point out.

That proves NOTHING about their ability to deliver ANYTHING in the Internet market. I mean, if it's worth so little to them that they need not make a profit on IE, what guarantee do I have that all the "you beaut" new technology they keep pumping out every 6 months will be there as soon as the "paradigm" shifts again? Why should I as a developer bother investing my Internet time and resources on their server products when they have such a casual attitude about their own browser? And other products in their range too? After all, what's stopping them from dropping all that ASP stuff in 6 months time if they find out someone else has shifted the focus? Where are you (and I and all the other 3rd parties) gonna be then? I know where I'll be: using non-Microsoft products for web servers, for sure! They at least have been around for longer and it is likely they will be around for a while.

Sure the front-end PC stuff (read: browser) will be MS only soon. That doesn't mean the back-end is or will be. Nothing further from the truth. At least until MS wakes up and realizes they are NOT selling to Joe 6pack when it comes to server-side stuff. And we the server side people hate being treated like Joe.

>
> Anyway, this discussion is good food for thought.
>

I hope so. For once, we are all discussing a little above the "show me yours and I'll show you mine" level of so many Usenet discussions. But it takes a LOT of effort, patience and a very thick skin to extract something out of the lurkers, who indulge IMHO in too much watching and very little exchanging ideas for my liking. What do they think they are doing? Coming up with the next BG paradigm by lurking and not discussing their concepts, ideas, beliefs, and concerns? Yeah, right!

Still, I have to thank all those who have provided useful insights and arguments. It is a breath of fresh air in the middle of all the "they sold X million
so they are good" crap which doesn't add anything to our knowledge and understanding.

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au
http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm Received on Sun May 16 1999 - 10:03:08 CDT