Re: Is Oracle deliberately difficult?

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:49:51 GMT, chriss_at_enteract.com wrote:

>In article <39ab7ae5_at_news.iprimus.com.au>,
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr_at_iprimus.com> wrote:
>>
>> Accepted, and respected. I'm just wondering if you can give a
 specific
>> example.
>>
>> When I first encountered Oracle, I thought it was beautifully
 engineered,
>> and I don't really see what the difficulties are. I do Oracle
 training
>> courses, so I see the the things students have trouble with, but it's
 easy
>> to buy out of that with thoughts such as 'that's students for
 you', 'well
>> what do you expect if they insist on keeping their mobile phones
 switched on
>> for the course's duration', or 'what do you expect -it is 5 over-
 packed days
>> after all'.
>>
>> The Oracle databases I have at home are managed using tried and tested
>> server manager, and I've never got on with the 'click OK and trust to
 luck'
>> kind of approach. Seems too much to be riding on to go that route.
>>
>> Still, I'd like to hear of specific examples you have in mind.
>
>I am still very much a neophyte and most examples I would point out are
>simply because it is a different paradigm from what I am used to. That
>alone is what causes a lot of problems for people starting out. Once I
>get my hands around the architecture and the basic setup, design,
>philosophy, and some rudimentary PL/SQL I'll probably be ok. However
>this is a far cry from when I started with SQL Server. However that's
>the Microsoft way - Information for the Idiots.
>
>I have a ways to go and will be covering more of the basics over the
>next few months as I get it set up on my Linux box at home. We have
>it running on some NT boxes at the office that I sometimes have to
>admin - but I'm forced into doing because I work with some dolts (i.e.
>oracle programmers who don't understand how to DBA what they are
>working on) and I've never been trained in it. So when I sit down and
>have to go to server manager and piddle around in there I'm like a kid
>with a jr. chemistry set hoping he doesn't blow something up.
>
>You say you feel more comfortable with the CLI then P&C. Why? The
>only benefit I can see is that you're less likely to hit the wrong
>button or try something not knowing what you're doing and mess
>something up. On the otherhand P&C you're more likely to find things
>when your not intimately familiar with the system and get it working.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.

I've used Oracle for a number of years, on different platforms, withdifferent application. In a way I find Oracle simpel yet complex. When I started to use Oracle, I had the usual questions - but after a while all the ordinary stuff in the engine became routine as well as the network communication, the packages the logical database and 24x7 uptime.

However, I think Oracle have beome to "errophrone" during the lastest years - and therefore harder to administrate. Like, what help is an enterprise manager, when it cannot report correctly, if your database is in archive mode or not. And that is only *one* example - I have plenty of these.

So ... I find Oracle easy to understand - but.... harder and harder to get to work - because of new half-coded functionality.

Just my 3.1415926535 dkr of oppinion.

/Bent Received on Tue Aug 29 2000 - 13:53:58 CDT