> > "Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:<40ad113c$0$20509$cc9e4d1f_at_news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
> >
> > > > Proposition 1:
> > > > There are circumstances under which my client is better protected
> against
> > > > commercial or accidental events, if he possesses source code to the
> > > > application and the underlying database management system.
> >
> > > Proposition 1a.
> > > There are circumstances under which my client is better protected
> against
> > > commercial or accidental events, if he possesses a contract with a
> > > financially stable vendor of the application and/or underlying
database
> > > management system.
> >
> > > Is exactly as true as Proposition 1. Define the circumstances. then
> relate
> > > them to the real business world.
Niall,
Exactly !!
We are both correct - both propositions have merit and neither should be
taken as the justification for believing one way is somehow "right" and the
other "wrong" in every case without exception. The important point is to
define the problem space and fit the solution to it.
In spite of the highly charged language this thread has suffered from,
this is the nub of what Quirk - and, latterly, I - have been trying to get
across.
It is not a matter of anyone claiming the high moral ground on some point
of principle. It is not a matter of one side defeating the other on points.
It is just a matter of accepting that there is more than one way to ensure a
customer gets best value for the budget they have available and the task
they need performed.
Quirk and I both agree that Oracle, for example, is a fine product with
many important features. We both, however, understand that it is not the
only tool in our toolbox and it has drawbacks as well as advantages.
The circumstances help define the problem space and we propose that
circumstances differ from one project to the next. Your mileage may vary.
Kind regards,
Doug Hutcheson
--
Remove the blots from my address to reply
Received on Mon May 24 2004 - 17:57:16 CDT
