Re: Fed Up with being a DBA

Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1063677261.439536_at_yasure>...
> Joel Garry wrote:
>
> >That's all very nice, but doesn't address the issue of having to
> >change vetted and implemented code.
> >
> And that's a bad thing? For who? The stockholders of the company?
> Corporate managment? The CDO? The
> clerks in accounting?

Unfortunately, I didn't notice the rest of this thread before I posted that :-O

Change for the sake of change isn't always a good thing. For what we are talking about here, it is transfer payments ("the dole") to software vendors.

>
> Seems to me that is what developers and DBAs are paid for.

Well, should they be? I think in a maturing industry you should see less planned obsolescence. DBA's should have a modified job description that doesn't include high-volume manual CBO tuning, and developer's jobs should get easier, not harder (at least for writing simple reports and updates).

>
> Follow this link for a better understanding of our industry:
>
> http://www.flubu.com:8008/comics/dilbert2.gif

I like the recent series where the young'un becomes the project manager. I've always identified with Wally, too :-)

>
> > The implication there is "how do
> >we know other things down the road won't do this to us again?"
> >
> You don't. You don't know that you won't get hit by a bus tomorrow
> either. That's life.

Well, the only control I have over that is not to get drunk and stumble in the road. But software vendors depending on mid-term memory loss is something else entirely.

>
> > As (or well, maybe, _if_ :-) the software industry matures, this upgrade
> >cycle expense will be more obvious.
> >
> >
> >
> And we could all still be shuffling punch cards. After all ... they did
> work.

I do still have decks from school... :-)

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=coverstory&loc_code=index&content_code=09282484