Re: OT: Interesting DB article

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote.

> You are assuming that the business *is* IT. That is not necessarily
> the case. A business that *uses* IT does not necessarily stagnate
> because it stopped evolving its IT.

Some months ago at a big business conference, one of the speakers (CEO of a very large corporate) said something to the effect that the core of his business (and he was in banking) is IT/IS.

He argued that he cannot do business, never mind *compete*, without using and exploiting IT. The bottom line he said, was that his corporate cannot survive without IT. And that makes IT as much part of his core business as the traditional core banking.

I found his viewpoint refreshing and tend to agree with it.

Stagnating IT is a huge problem. I've worked in the 90's with companies that still used very old mainframes technology as the core system of their business. And I've seen first hand the negative impact it has on their business. To such an extent that they were trap in a technology hole. And in the scramble to catch up to the competition, the technology chosen was done in haste and at the end of the day not the best of architectures. (something that in my experience is the norm instead of the exception)

> No, but I can blame the toolmaker when it makes tools
> that are way out of what I use them for.

Or you can choose the right toolbox to use. :-)

Personally, I am a big Oracle supporter. I like the product. It can do freakily kewl things. However, professionally there is more than just technical kewl features and Oracle. SQL-Server is a better choice under certain conditions. Or Informix. Or runing Linux with mySQL or WinXP with Firebird.

SO IMO it is not the toolmaker not making the right tools - it is the toolusers that let their personal preferences and likes get in the way of selecting the right toolbox for the job.

--
Billy