Re: A voodoo masterpiece

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<418f3437$0$19402$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> http://dba-oracle.com/oracle_news/2004_11_18_jenkins.htm
>
> Note the crass typos. Note the fact that the news stems from about 10 days
> in the future. Note that the World's Leading Oracle Author can't string a
> sentence together without making it sound like Esperanto is his first
> language. Note too that the Great Author and his sidekick think that
> proving one's assertions is "beyond stupid".
>
> Why is anyone still believing anything this old dinosaur hacks out (badly)?
>

Because in order to maintain the level of proof required would mean writing an article as long as Jonathon's several times for each page the dinosaur hacks out, and rewriting each article several times for each response?

At some point you have to stipulate, even lawyers see that.

Some random assertions about complex software:

The proof required for Oracle to accept a bug may be different in kind from that needed to assert a rule of thumb about Oracle.

Some bugs require a level of complexity to prove beyond that easily shown in the usual Oracle bug submission procedure.

A small number of variables can create a complex and unpredictable result. Deconstructing a problem to a very small number of variables and proving things about each does not provide proof about all situations combining any of the proofs.

Just because a proof is not easy to demonstrate, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Testing may show bugs. It may miss bugs. It may cause improper expectations based on bugs. It is not proof. But of course, it must be done.

It is entirely possible to make a hypothesis, test it, prove the hypothesis, and still be wrong.

Using an active voice writing style in publications about software makes it sound like marketspeak. Using a passive voice in marketing materials makes it sound like science. Either way, it can be misleading, and scepticism is warranted. The Oracle culture seems to require an active writing voice in order to sell the concepts. The passive voice can be boring.

Back to the topic:

Jeez, those guys look bad.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.sdtimes.com/opinions/guestview_113.htm