Re: The MySQL/PHP pair

"Bill H" <wphaskettatTHISISMUNGEDadvantosdotnet> wrote in message news:H5OdnTU8-bUb5wzcRVn-3A_at_adelphia.com...

> I don't believe I've ever suggested that an RDBMS is not an acceptable
> solution to a business problem. Nor, I believe, have I ever suggested
that
> using one is likely to produce failure at accomplishing the task at hand.
> So you may very well be mistaking me for someone else.

I am not saying that you have said it. Dawn, however, has been saying essentially this for over a year now.
When you applaud Dawn's insight, and say how well she "gets it", I assume you are referring to the general thrust of her remarks. If you you are simply referring to Dawn's concern with total cost of ownership, my reaction is: "Well, Duh!"

What makes you think there is anyone in this forum that doesn't get the idea of holding costs down???

>
> I have no problem with RDBMS products at all. I don't use them that much
> but I do use them. I don't develop in them much but I do at times. I
spend
> most of my development time in internet development.
>

Good. Then my difference is not with you.

Just what was it that made you give up your vacation anyway, if it's not too private?

> I'm not ever debating this with anyone, why would I. I simply note the
> difficulties the development structure presents when:
>
> 1) databases are managed by one group of people,
> 2) user interfaces are managed by another group of people, and
> 3) the end product is put into the hands of a business trying to make a
> profit.

I have to agree with you that the internal politics of getting groups to truly collaborate with each other, instead of pretending that the workplace is one giant "survivor's island" is truly formidable. But this is not unique to IT. We have sales departments, advertising departments, and strategic marketing departments that ought to be working synergistically with each other, but are not. And I could go on.

>
> Next, those who denigrate Dawn for "not getting it" have no clue about her
> experience. Those comments surely indicate a narrow focus. I would not
> want to denigrate your experience because they may not map to mine. As a
> member of NFIB, the local Rotary, the local Chamber of Commerce (in three
> States), I commiserate constantly with small businesses about the ongoing
> issues we all face.
>
Some of us may be denigrating her experience. I don't count myself as one of those. I'm just saying that the teams I've been part of have had better results from products like Oracle than the results Dawn says her groups have acheived.

> I've never said you had to have the same experiences as I; just that there
> is another perspective from which the narrow focus of RDB theory could use
> some input.

Agreed.

> All I can say to this is: if I'm throwing money down a rat hole then
that's
> evidence I'm throwing money down a rat hole. You're correct in that I
> might be able to avoid this; but now without some very good advice and
luck.

Good advice is nearer to being under your control than good luck.

> I'm not debating your observation that GE needs greater IT resources than
> ABC office supply. I'm trying to point out a perspective on software
> development; that business complexity brings on greater development costs
> differently to different development models. PeopleSoft and Oracle
> Financials are very expensive. I could go on and on about their
databases,
> hardware topology, support requirements, etc. But their target market has
> the money to spend.

What is surprising is that, when Dawn was asked to list the importance she placed on various factors in influencing her assesment of the weaknesses of products like Oracle, the weight she put on the product license cost was 0%, unless I misread her.

BTW, what we are discussing is Oracle RDBMS, not Oracle Financials. I've never used Oracle Financials myself, so I can't comment. But Oracle Financials really doesn't have all that much to do with "database theory", does it?

>
> As Dawn has experienced, and has mentioned in this forum, she's run into
> full featured enterprise applications that cost a fraction of these two
> large scale applications. I have had the same experience as she.
>

Again, are we talking about the DBMS, or are we talking about an application layered on top of it?

> > It's not that Dawn doesn't get it about your cost structure. What she
> > doesn't get is how some of us succeeded.
>
> I don't interpret her comments like that at all. If I've ever implied
that,
> then I owe a large apology and am quite willing to offer it. Without
> speaking for anyone else I can only say I've been involved, as I'm know
you
> have, in numerous, successful, large scale enterprise application
> development projects (some not so good ones too). One would think both of
> our experiences could be useful in moving forward and exchanging rather
> interesting thoughts and experiences, rather than using those experiences
to
> beat up on each other. :-)

Well, if you'll go back and see where Dawn and I have specifically disagreed, you might change your mind about what she has been saying. Then again, I might change my mind if I were to do the same.

I agree that it's a waste of time to beat up on each other. If I've ever beaten up on Dawn, then I owe her an apology.

My own attitude is there there never has been one single "silver bullet" in the world of IT. And every product, methodology, paradigm, or whatever that has been elevated to the category of "silver bullet" has been oversold. Some applications should use an RDBMS. Some should use some other kind of DBMS. And some shouldn't use a DBMS at all.

Ditto for Peoplesoft or Oracle Financials.
>
> Since I've been wrong before, I could be this time too.
>
Same here. Received on Wed Nov 10 2004 - 05:00:38 CET