Re: Oracle is a bigger version of MS Access?

Billy Verreynne wrote:

> How would you comment on the following? This is a snippet from an
> e-mail I received some hours ago about a newly proposed architecture
> which mainly focus on Java:
> ---
> In this, we have viewed ORACLE as just a 'BIG' MS Access or 'BIT
> BUCKET' with better management and processing tools. I don't believe
> this view has changed, and I do not foresee it changing.
>
> I do not believe we should use Oracle's Workflow, SNMP, Telnet, Web
> Services, etc tools because it moves away from our core requirements
> from Oracle.
>
> I feel that if we go down the route using ORACLE non-core
> functionality, we will painting ourselves in a corner. Our
> functionality will then become dependant on whether ORACLE supports it
> or not, and if it does, to what level does it support it. Also, will
> support for this feature continue now or in the future. This could be
> restrictive.
> --
>
> Comments will be appreciated.
>
> --
> Billy

To paraphrase - we've finally figured out how to do it in Java and now, for the sake of job security, we are sticking with that regardless of whether it is the best solution for the organization of not. However, we will spin this hard by using the tired 'vendor independence' and 'best of breed (being in-house of course)' nonsense that real organizations stopped using 10 years ago.

The only possible argument against such religious drivel might be Chapter 1 of Kyte's expert one-on-one.

But it's an uphill battle precisely because it's religious (pure belief without, or deliberately ignoring, any visible means of support). Received on Thu Oct 02 2003 - 00:49:47 CDT