Re: Wrapped PLSQL

Comments interspersed below:

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

> Daniel Morgan <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in news:3DC0080F.F96ACAC3
> @exesolutions.com:
>
> > Pablo Sanchez wrote:
> >
> >> "Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-family_at_attbi.com> wrote in
> >> news:hSRv9.176689$%d2.60765_at_sccrnsc01:
> >>
> >> > No I don't believe they want to clone Oracle. Just saying they
> >> > don't actually invent a lot of things themselves. They don't do a
> >> > lot of original work (which is what Sybrand is suggesting).
> >>
> >> I think you might have misread what Sybrand wrote. He specifically
> >> said that MSoft would want to build an Oracle clone. There is no
> >> compelling business case put forward as to why this would be the case:
> >>
> >> Sybrand wrote:
> >>
> >> They have been purposively wrapped as not to give away some
> >> crown jewels, and to avoid to have Bill Gates build an Oracle
> >> clone.
> >>
> >> On the other front, we could go on and talk about whether MSoft
> >> invents or doesn't invent a lot of things themselves but that's a
> >> different thread than this one.
> >
> > Let me quote what Sybrand wrote:
> > "Did MS ever *invent* (as opposed to buy or usually steal) anything?"
>
> That's a follow-up to his original post that I quoted above. The
> original post he made, he didn't follow up with a supporting
> information for his assertion.
>
> Now, for Sybrand's second post (thread really!): Did MS ever *invent*
> anything? One can easily go to the copyright records and search for
> all Microsoft inventions. All you need to do is find _one_ and the
> statement falls down.

Actually that is not true. I have personally invented a number of things. Licensed them to others. And my name does not appear anywhere on either patent or copywrite. But if you want to take part in this usenet group and try to be a literalist ... you are begging for great disappointment. We also tend to ignore correcting spelling and grammar for reasons that hopefully are self-evident.

>
>
> > I see nothing even remote close to your statement.
>
> I don't understand this statement. You might want to re-write it.
>
> > But as one who lives and works in the Redmond Washington area, and
> > who has lots of friends at Microsoft, it is an acknowledged fact
> > that their expertise is in marketing ... not technology unless one
> > looks at what comes out of the Public Relations and Marketing
> > departments. SQL Server would not exist were it not for an outright
> > theft of Sybase.
>
> They didn't steal it, Sybase Inc (stupidly???!) sold their product to
> them. The sad thing is that Sybase, like so many others, thought they
> could outwit Microsoft and they lost (like so many others).

Sold? And California "purchased" electricity from Enron at the going price too. Have you considered practicing law?

> > That a gun was not involved makes it no less a theft. Just as the
> > fact that Kenneth Lay is not in a penitentiary does not mean that he
> > and Enron do not steal more than every bank robber in the last
> > century combined.
>
> Huh? LOL!
>
> > That being said I don't believe the point of wrapping is to prevent
> > Microsoft, or anyone else, from duplicating Oracle.
>
> Bingo! That's my point. Furthermore, I actually think this
> hurts Oracle Inc. One of the things I like about some vendors is they
> publish the source of their 'packages' so that if I wish to model a
> similar routine, I have a starting point.

It doesn't hurt Oracle ... because I, and others, would not build products based on their platform if we could not protect our intellectual property. If you've got hurt feelings because you can't look up Larry's skirts ... c'est dommage.

> > Anything can be reverse engineered. The point is to allow vendors of
> > products to protect their source code from their competitors. And as
> > someone that has worked on developing commercial products ... that
> > is very much appreciated.
>
> This is arguable and as such, I'll let it lay.

My opinion is my opinion and is not arguable. You may not find value in this feature for yourself. But to argue that I don't even after I stated that I did is pointless. And you may draw a valid conclusion from the preceding statement.

> > Could a competitor reverse engineer? Absolutely. But it slows them
> > down and raises their costs. And that, in and of itself, is
> > sufficient for the protection of intellectual property.
>
> Yup ... but yet another thread.
>
> What all the DBMS vendors do is look at what the other players are
> offering and reconcile that against what their customer base is
> telling them they want. Then they go and do it. Nothing magical.

> I contend that all RDBMS are the same, you just have to pick the point
> in time. <g>

And I contend that you have no idea what multi-versioning is.

>
> --
> Pablo Sanchez, High-Performance Database Engineering
> http://www.hpdbe.com

Daniel Morgan Received on Wed Oct 30 2002 - 11:58:01 CST