Re: Oracle licence question

From: Frank van Bortel <frank.van.bortel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:15:23 +0100
Message-ID: <dts8th$dr9$1@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>

Serge Rielau wrote:
> HansF wrote:

>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:25:02 +0000, Tony Rogerson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What you mean - they use portable SQL as definied by the ANSI SQL
>>> standard, something Oracle doesn't do very well! Come on guys, catch
>>> up!! Talk about MS locking people in - LOL!
>>
>>
>> I am specifically saying that vendor lockin is a good thing.  Accept what
>> is being offered and go with it.  Then, in 3 years time, when replacing
>> the system, look at what is the right tool at that time.

> Hans,
>
> Hang on..., have you seen many shops that actually switch an app after
> those three years (from or to Oracle, doesn't matter)? The moment the
> application logic (which includes procedures) has committed to the misc.
> features of a given product migration costs skyrocket.

During the days I was into mainframe programming, research (not by me, but independent) showed the average life time of an application was 5 years.

I cannot see how, or why this cycle would have decreased over the years.

So, I can only agree with what Hans says, even if the experience is old. That could explain my 5, versus Hans' 3 years span.

On the other hand, I do agree there's a substantial portion "not invented here" syndrome going on, causing new development not to choose the best tool, but best cost/benefit ratio on the short term (i.e. one or two years, not the lifespan of the application built).
And of course, (human) nature resists against change. What ever change, for better or for worse.

-- 
Regards,
Frank van Bortel

Top-posting is one way to shut me up...

Received on Sun Feb 26 2006 - 07:15:23 CST