Re: COMP.DATABASES.ORACLE split

In article <HxboiDAepEiyEwDw_at_jimsmith.demon.co.uk> Jim Smith <jim_at_jimsmith.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <566fck$8tf_at_wormer.fn.net>, "Jack L. Swayze Sr."
><keystrk_at_feist.com> writes
>>Jim Smith <jim_at_jimsmith.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <55u512$ksk_at_wormer.fn.net>, "Jack L. Swayze Sr."
>>>>
>>>>If this is not a service for the customers of Oracle, then who is it a
>>>>service for?
>>>>
>>>>Sheesh! Another one not knowing or caring about the customer!
>>>>
 

>>>Usenet newsgroups in general and comp.databases.oracle.* in particular
>>>are nothing to do with Oracle Corporation.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>I know that, silly.
>>
>
>Fuck off you patronising little turd.

Now, there is an original flame! (not)

>
>>What you fail to realize is that, despite this newsgroup not being
>>supplied from Oracle, it still has customers. Those customers are the
>>people who are more interested in getting a database up and keeping it
>>up rather than participate in the newsgroup form of politics.
>>
>It doesn't have customers, it has participants. Customers pay for a
>service and therefore have some rights. A newsgroup is a democratic
>organisation, not a commercial one.

No, take a class in TQM, customers can and should be defined as he said. Not that I'm not cynical about TQM, mind you. If you think newsgroups are not commercial, you might try grepping on "uunet", "Freedom Knight", "David C (sic) Lawrence", "(spit)", "jetcafe" and on and on. Please note that I do not necessarily agree with the sentiments you will find in such a search. But the point is, newsgroups have been commercialized and are now a commodity for profit-driven companies. Many EDU's are profit-driven, too. If you think newsgroups are democratic organizations, I've got a nice bridge in Bonsall for sale. As someone said, anarchy doesn't scale well. What they didn't say was, it scales into authoritarianism.

>
>>The very individuals who would add the most value to a newsgroup such
>>as this will be the ones 1) chided the most for not understanding the
>>split and 2) alienated by the loss of this newsgroup.
>>
>That is a bit arrogant. I haven't seen you add much value to this group
>other than ranting on pedantically about labels.

Well, maybe he hasn't added value, but I have. He has a point.

>
>>What you guys from News.Groups fail to realize is the economics of
>>this whole situation, and that is because you do not understand your
>>customers, the readers and posters of the newsgroups.
>>
>I am not 'from News.Groups'. I am an Oracle DBA. The readers and posters
>of the newsgrops are the people who voted for the split.

271 votes is hardly more than the daily volume of posts. I know I posted against using .misc.

>
>>Borrowing from the discipline of ER-Diagramming, and Normalization, it
>>is obvious to me that you should name things according to their most
>>obvious purpose. Naming a group that is to (primarily) contain Jobs
>>Postings something like: Comp.Databases.Oracle.Marketplace (or
>>whatever) violates that principle. I would expect to see a newsgroup
>>for job postings to have the word 'Job' in it.

Borrowing from political newspeak, things should be named for what makes people feel comfortable and secure. :)

>
>The weakness of your argument is shown by latching on to the least
>important group name. Do you have any rational views on c.d.o tools,
>server, misc?

It is not the least important, because the headhunters will be the largest group of misposters. See my pre-vote rant about misc. Headhunters certainly seem to think they have a right to post to any group with jobs in the title, and anywhere else, charters notwithstanding. Apologies to any "nice" headhunters, but you chose to be in a profession with some slimeballs.

>
>>The fact that the majority of the votes received agreed with the name
>>of 'market' (or whatever) indicates to me that the voters were not
>>primarily database professionals, as we are aware of the significance
>>of naming something misleading.
>
>I suspect it is because most people don't care. One of the main reasons
>for the split was the volume of traffic and a god way to reduce that is
>to get rid of job postings which distract from the technical imformation
>we are interested in.

You could just ban job postings. There are plenty of other appropriate places for them.

The "majority" of votes were a statistically skewed sample. Most people would care if given a chance.

>>
>>You, no doubt, will respond that the readers of, and posters to,
>>newsgroups have a responsibility to understand the newsgroup process.
>
>All your other assumptions are dubious and this one is completely wrong.

Time was, they did have such a responsibility. We call that "the good old days."

>
>>I say that is bunk. It shows a total lack of understanding about the
>>customer and about fundamental economics.
>
>Economics has nothing to do with it.

It does, on a very fundamental level. The potential posters will evaluate whether it is worthwhile to use their scarce resource, time, on reading or posting to these groups. If people get discouraged, the groups will die. Or worse, get taken over by college students or scam artists. Don't think such things don't happen, see misc.jobs.misc and alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.

>>
>>The 'centrally controlled and planned' approach went the way of the
>>Berlin wall. (I hope you understand the analogy, there.)
>
>I understand the analogy. Its just a crap one. Why is it that planning
>ahead and being prepared is OK for businesses, but doesn't make sense
>for governments and non-commercial organisations.

Why the assumption of governments and non-commercial organizations? The vast majority of usenet is now on commercial ISP's.

>
>>Unless you
>>make the effort to understand and facilitate the customer, then the
>>customer will show you his displeasure by leaving your product as soon
>>as someone else figures out what the customer truly needs and how to
>>best supply it.
>
>So what! No-one is making money from usenet groups so there is no loss.

Umm, people are making money from usenet groups, and people are forgoing usenet for websites. When the useage of cdo falls under a critical mass, those of us who find it useful will suffer a loss. Life cycle applies to usenet groups, too.

>>
>>I would be willing to bet there are dozens, if not hundreds, of unused
>>usegroups because of this very same principle. Whether or not you are
>>willing to admit it, you are in a competition.
>>I cannot say what the
>>other medium will be that will replace this one, but it will come.
>>You win that competition by understanding the customer, not demanding
>>that the customer understand you (or your newsgroup bureaucracy).
>>
>
>What really pisses me off are people like you who are quite happy to
>exploit the facilities without participating.

How do you know who is participating? This is a very tenuous medium, even altavista/dejanews only go back a couple months for cdo. Some jerk (was it you?) even accused me of what you are accusing Jack of during the split discussion. And I've been posting here and on C$erve ORACLE since the 80's!

>--
>Jim Smith

-- 
Joel Garry               joelga_at_rossinc.com               Compuserve 70661,1534
These are my opinions, not necessarily those of Ross Systems, Inc.   <> <>
%DCL-W-SOFTONEDGEDONTPUSH, Software On Edge - Don't Push.            \ V /
panic: ifree: freeing free inodes...                                   O