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

In article <3CD403B1.EC986E74_at_earthlink.net>, you said (and I quote):
> [So much for me letting the thread die. So what, I'm a hypocrite. ;) ]

Hey, we're just talking. That's not perishable, is it? <g>

>
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. When I look at my Oracle
> manuals - let's take the 3-volume 9i SQL Reference manual to start with
> - I see some pretty high-quality material. Were I to count up the
> numbers of pages without errors vs. those with errors, I'd bet ratio
> would be upwards of 1000:1 or higher (when's the last time you filed a
> legitmate documentation bug?). Same goes for my Solaris manuals. And
> HP/UX. That's not just random luck. Somebody is being very careful
> about checking what goes into those documents.

Sean, saying that it's better now is just saying that at this point in time, someone has spent a lot of effort in at least proof reading (like Pete admitted). That's fine. It's what happens repeatedly for many years that concerns me. When Oracle keeps the current quality of doco consistently for a number of years, then I'll be suitably impressed.

And not in the least convinced that in "legalese" land that is worth a single cent. Without a big disclaimer all over it. Do you want to bet Oracle won't EVER give up the disclaimers all over their products/doco, no matter how much the quality improves?

And given that "legal" issues were invoked as being behind the reason for closing down hjrdba, I'm still of the belief that was not the case. As I said, those are solved by companies and have been solved for ages. It's not a new problem.

>
> I have no idea.

Me neither. But these questions spring to mind when we start talking about why something is closed or "asked" to close.

> > 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.
>
> When did anyone say that? Do you know something we don't, or are you
> just guessing at the reasoning behind the decision?

Guessing. That would certainly be a major consideration. As big as any others. Valid? IMO, no way. But it would have been considered, you can bet on that.

> Did I like the site? Yes. Am I sorry it's gone? Yes. Do I know much
> more than that about the decisions involved? Nope. Do I wish now that
> I'd kept my trap shut and not speculated? Most definitely.
>

Oh bugger! Who cares? :-D

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam