Jim Kennedy wrote:
> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:400AD6C0.2030502_at_x.washington.edu...
>
>>Jim Kennedy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alas, the whole behind the curve problem. The vendor application takes
>>>forever to use the current version of Oracle and then the business takes
>>>even longer to upgrade to the current or latest vendor application so
>
> there
>
>>>is this huge time lag behind when a release from Oracle comes out and
>
> when a
>
>>>company finally uses it. I've worked places where table and index
>
> reorgs
>
>>>still occur because the vendor recommends it. (Primus, SAP, Siebel) You
>>>would think that these companies would hire top DBA's for their
>
> application
>
>>>development and stay current with the technology.
>>>
>>>It is very frustrating to have this highly capable database and because
>
> the
>
>>>vendor is incompetent (in terms of the database) you can't take
>
> advantage of
>
>>>features that would improve the quality of life for your users.
>>>
>>>This is not Oracle's fault; I would rather they have the features
>
> available
>
>>>before I can use them than the other way round.
>>>Jim
>>
>>The fault, if a finger is to be pointed, is to the customers that don't
>>demand more from the vendors. It is certainly easy to see why SAP,
>>PeopleSoft, Siebel, Baan, etc. don't invest cash in upgrading their
>>technology if they can still make billions selling the same old code.
>>
>>For those interested ... when I go on consulting gigs and advise clients
>>on purchases here are some of the things I insist are written into the
>>purchase contract.
>>
>>1. Vendor agrees to make available and support a version of their
>>product that is compatible with one or more FULLY supported versions of
>>the database.
>>
>>Which means that, on this date, they would have to support 8.1.7.4 at a
>>minimum. And that by December of this year ... 9.2.0.4.
>>
>>2. Vendor agrees to, at vendor's expense, to prove that all statements
>>of compatiblity between vendor's product, and other products existing
>>within the organization, are true.
>>
>>Meaning those products that will directly interface with the vendor's
>>product.
>>
>>3. Vendor agrees to make available to customer a list of 100 customers
>>both of similar size and in the same industry that are using vendor's
>>product: Including company name and name of contact.
>>
>>Then contact is made with at least five of them, randomly chosen, and we
>>don't contact the named contact but rather avoid that person like the
>>plague except to get the name of a production DBA actually supporting
>>the system.
>>
>>When faced with the loss of a multi-million dollar contract it is
>>amazing what some vendors will step up to the plate and agree to that
>>they won't do if not pushed.
>>
>>--
>>Daniel Morgan
>>http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
>>http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
>>damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
>>(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
>>
>
> Excellent points Daniel. Hope support means "allow purchaser" to use all
> features present in the current database. (eg Cost based optimizer, function
> based indexes, etc.)
> Jim
Obviously I didn't include the legal verbiage. But yes ... support means
that they will allow the customer to implement on that software and
utilize its functionality fully.
Anyone that spends $100, much less $100,000, on software where the
vendor will make the claim verbally, but not put it in writing signed by
a corporate officer, might as well put their money into a pile and pour
petrol on it. Same end result without wasting people's time.
--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Received on Sun Jan 18 2004 - 15:24:56 CST
