Re: http://www.hjrdba.com/

In article <3cd39940$0$15472$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>, Nuno says...
>

snip

>That is totally incorrect. There is no such process, there never was.
>I've worked with Oracle and many, many other companies in the last 25
>years and I can tell you upfront there is no such process ANYWHERE! Most
>of the stuff IT companies put out doesn't even get proof read, let alone
>quality assured! That's why they have so many disclaimers all over
>the place. And let's not talk about anything that might be qualified as
>marketing material...

Sorry mate you're wrong on this one. The doc and training material gets proof read by people in Development as well as other lines of business. At least it has over the past couple of years - wouldn't know about the marketing stuff but isn't it the role of Marketing in any company to lie judiciously? ;) Does that means that there are no errors? Obviously not. Some of us do have day jobs that don't include volunteering for things like proof-reading (or indeed answering NG posts). But at least there is a conscious effort to improve the process. Hopefully that's been reflected in an improvement in the material of recent times.

>
>
>>
>> I would also be willing to bet that Australian laws are not much
>> different than the rest of the world in this respect. For instance, if
>> you worked for Intel in the US and invented a new chip, guess who owns
>> the patent? Right, Intel, not you. Is that fair? Absolutely. If you
>> think you could have invented that chip without all the capital outlay
>> that Intel provided you as an employee (computers, labs, documentation,
>> fellow employees, telephones, healthcare, whatever), then you should
>> have quit your job and done it on your own. Then the patent is all
>> yours.
>
>Howard's site was an information spreading site. Got nothing to do with
>invention of any product. Two completely different things.
>
>>
>> A site like Howard's wouldn't be much different. Howard, by virtue of
>> being an Oracle employee, is privy to vast amounts of information not
>> available to the general public. He has free access to Oracle
>> University materials, free access to other Oracle-employed experts,
>> internal Oracle-only documentation, and gets to hone his skills on
>> Oracle's nickel as an instructor. Clearly, Howard's writings (though
>> insightful and original) directly benefitted from his status as an
>> Oracle employee. Could he have produced those same writings had he not
>> been employed by Oracle? Maybe, but that's a tough one to prove. So
>> yes, Oracle owns what he's produced, as well they should.
>>
>
>OK, the two things are not similar like I said. But you got a point
>there. Howard being privvy to info that others cannot obtain is a well
>known (and accepted) thing. So do many others that have a web presence.
>We all accept it and thank them for taking the time off their busy
>schedule to spread a very small portion of that information.
>
>Should Oracle ask all of them to shut up as well? When is a web presence
>sanctioned by Oracle? Where is the line drawn exactly? Why would Oracle
>be even remotely interested in only having "official" web sites on the
>web?
>
>The amount of stuff in Howard's site was very small compared to what can
>be obtained from proper Oracle training. There is not even a point in
>saying that Oracle's education income would suffer from sites like his.
>It would not. If anything, there would be even more stimulus to use
>Oracle education. By being able to verify the quality of the stuff that
>can come off their instructors. In the past that has not been always the
>case, so every little bit helps here.
>
>
>> It's a shame that all the personal time he spent on the site is now
>> lost.
>
>Indeed.
>
>--
>Cheers
>Nuno Souto
>nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam

HTH. Additions and corrections welcome.

Pete

SELECT standard_disclaimer, witty_remark FROM company_requirements; Received on Sat May 04 2002 - 10:39:56 CDT