Re: From ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L?

I personally wouldn't like the combination of the two. A lot of times discussions are specific to one database flavor and we don't want to mix up the two (or many) with wrong information. Now unless the "list" was smart enough and maybe it is already where you subscribe to the DATABASE-L and when a message is sent to ORACLE-L it auto forwards to DATABASE-L with the subject saying from ORACLE-L. That might be ok.

However wouldn't it just be better if we all just moved over to Stack Exchange/Overflow? I honestly don't go there unless it comes up in my Google searches so not really sure how good or not it is. I do like the email though as it is easy to scan my inbox for interesting topics. And Twitter is blocked at work so that is out for me, plus you are limited on characters so kind of hard to get your question in it would seem.

My two cents.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Robert Freeman <rfreeman_at_businessolver.com> wrote:

> Tim,
>
>
>
> My two cents… and of course, some of this depends on how much time you
> really want to invest in all of this… J
>
>
>
> There is a lot of benefit in maintaining the Oracle specific focus of
> ORACLE-L:
>
>
>
> – Technology specific content means that there is less sifting
> through the “cross-pollination” of topics to get to the technology specific
> question you have. Purity is important I think.
>
> – I would suspect that technology specific lists will attract those
> who specialize in those specific technologies. A pure stack is probably
> likely to get more authoritive answers than a watered down stack.
>
> o I’ve seen technology neutral boards/lists often provide inaccurate
> information posted by folks who are not spending a lot of time with the
> technology they offer answers on. I think you would see a lot more “I
> think” or “I guess” kinds of answers.
>
> o I’ve also seen technology neutral boards/lists have holy wars about
> the various stacks, that are no fun. Granted, many of those threads
> eventually get policed.
>
> – In many cases, standards, processes, terminology and other things
> differ across stacks. This could confuse beginners. Things in the Oracle
> world change fast enough – multiply that several times for each additional
> stack you add to the mailing list.
>
> – You have beginners here often, and I’d be concerned that
> cross-technology/stack posting could get confusing for them.
>
> – With all of the stacks, there is such depth and breadth that I’d
> be afraid a less focused mailing list would become less useful.
>
> – A less focused technology list will be harder to search for the
> answer you are looking for.
>
>
>
> This reasoning extends to other active and emerging database stacks, they
> should have their own lists.
>
>
>
> Then the question that comes to my mind is, can we have our cake and eat
> it too?
>
> Why not source, from these DB specific lists, a consolidated and
> searchable list from all database specific lists? Something like DBALL-L. I
> would think that it would be easy to automate the copying of threads to
> such a list? This would be helpful for those who want to look for topics
> related to more than one stack.
>
> I am debating if one should allow posts in the DBALL-L list… That would
> require some level of moderation to ensure that posts don’t really belong
> in a database specific list, though I do suggest a possible DBINTEGRATION-L
> list that could be the place to post cross-platform questions.
>
>
>
> Second, (just thinking aloud here) with respect to social media - Is there
> some way that we can integrate lists like ORACLE-L into social media
> platforms like twitter, facebook and linked in (and maybe that’s already
> done in some way – I have largely removed myself from social media – I just
> was finding the signal to noise ratio - inefficient)?
>
>
>
> Is there some way to integrate the technologies so that we can actually
> improve the usability of all of them? Perhaps such a thing is more effort
> that it’s worth…. I just wonder if there is an ORACLE-L post, if there
> should not be some related tweet that goes out to the ORACLE-L twitter
> subscribers with maybe a subject and link to the post (just thinking aloud
> here – there could be great arguments not to do this). Or a Linked in daily
> post with the digest contents of Oracle-L…?
>
>
>
> Along with ORACLE-L or MSSQL-L I think there is a good argument for a few
> other lists? (depending on how many lists one wants to have/manage).
>
>
>
> For example:
>
>
>
> – DBALL-L – Integrated list of all *-L lists for those who love
> super cross-pollination.
>
> – DBINTEGRATION-L - List services for those trying to integrate
> stacks. I think such a list could certainly be cross-stack.
>
> – DBMIGRATION-L – List services for those migrating between
> database stacks.
>
> – DBCLOUD-L – List services specific to database cloud offerings
>
> – DATASCIENCE-L – List services related to data science topics.
>
> – DBREPLICATION-L – List services related to replication services
> like Golden Gate or Shareplex
>
> – DBRETIREEARLY-L – Self-explanatory – Currently among my favorite
> list ideas.
>
>
>
> I guess, in part, all of this really boils down to what is the need of the
> community? What will drive them to use the tool that has been so wonderful
> in the past – Namely Oracle-L.
>
>
>
> My thoughts…. VMMV….. Cheers!!
>
>
>
> RF
>
>
>
> Robert G. Freeman
>
> Deliverer of Data
>
> Businessolver
>
> Cell: 801-703-3405 <(801)%20703-3405>
>
> *Anon:* *Science. If you don’t make mistakes, you’re doing it wrong. If
> you don’t correct those mistakes, you’re doing it really wrong. If can’t
> accept that you’re mistaken, you’re not doing it at all.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_
> freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Stefan Knecht
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:48 AM
> *To:* Tim Gorman <tim.evdbt_at_gmail.com>
> *Cc:* ORACLE-L <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>
> *Subject:* Re: From ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L?
>
>
>
> Personally, my vote would be oracle-only. Perhaps add a second list
> maintained with the same style that is for other DBMS.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Zahir Mohideen <zahir.dba_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Tim -
>
>
>
> it is a great idea to expand oracle_l to database_l .
>
>
>
> My question is , if we were to expand , are we restricting the
> discussions to RDBMS only or include NOSQL dbs as well.
>
>
>
> Usually , we ( I am also in SQL server side ) communicate in Twitter with
> #sqlhelp tag .
>
>
>
> - Zahir
>
>
> Zahir Mohideen
> http://mfzahirdba.blogspot.com/
>
>
> *Nothing so GREAT was achieved without enthusiasm*
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Tim Gorman <tim.evdbt_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> So, of course, I ask *Oracle* people about it. :)
>
> This thread is a good argument for expanding ORACLE-L to DATABASE-L.
>
> There is a vibrant technical community in SQL Server and it is long past
> time that these communities cross-pollinated better.
>
> As this thread shows, it isn't that one or the other DBMS is better, but
> they can be different in subtle ways which can trip up even the most
> experienced of us.
>
> And, as this thread shows, many of us are tasked with administering both
> DBMS packages, in addition to PostgreSQL and MySQL.
>
> I'm proud to cite my wife, Kellyn <http://dbakevlar.com/>, as an example
> of this breed of renaissance geek, as she is currently president of both
> the Rocky Mountain Oracle Users Group <http://rmoug.org> and of the Denver
> SQL Server users group <http://denversql.org>, and she is likely soon to
> become the first person in the world to achieve both Oracle ACE Director
> (now alumnae) and Microsoft MVP recognition.
>
> One noticeable difference between the two communities is age. On average,
> Kellyn and I find attendees at SQL Server users group events to be about 10
> years younger than Oracle users group events, based on unscientific eyeball
> observation. Also, the SQL Server users group community has a much larger
> percentage of women attendees and speakers (i.e. about 40% for SQL to about
> 20% for Oracle).
>
> As a result, while the ORACLE-L list has been yakking along happily here
> on email for the past 20 years, the SQL Server community has been largely
> conversing on Twitter. Both communities blog at about the same rate and
> volume (in my opinion), and both communities seem to use LinkedIn to the
> same degree (in my opinion). So, the biggest difference in online
> communication style seems to be email vs tweets.
>
> So, if we were to go through the effort of changing from ORACLE-L to
> DATABASE-L (leaving aliases from ORACLE-L to point to DATABASE-L so folks
> can still find us), we would find adoption by the SQL Server community to
> be slow, because they would have a struggle paying attention to, and
> responding to, a high-volume email list. There are undoubtedly good ways
> to integrate email and Twitter, and I'm sure they can be quite seamless,
> but the first question is: what do y'all think?
>
> How do you personally feel about discussing and learning about SQL Server
> as well as Oracle? Would it enhance your prospects?
>
>
>
>
> On 3/15/18 07:23, Rich J wrote:
>
> On 2018/03/15 07:34, Jeff Smith wrote:
>
> Brent is a friend and an ex-coworker. He wanted to share the background of
> this customer's scenario, in case it would help you with yours.
>
> I let Brent know some folks were having...fun...with his take on
> autocommit.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> *Heh heh heh, I can only imagine. The difference on optimistic vs
> pessimistic concurrency nailed it though - the default combo of optimistic
> & implicit transactions makes sense in Oracle, and the default of
> pessimistic and automatic transactions makes sense in SQL Server. It's when
> you change only one of those two settings that you're screwed.*
>
> *The blog post stemmed from an app that had been written by SQL Server
> people, and then an Oracle guy came in and made a few changes. He switched
> to implicit transactions without understanding that everybody was doing
> single-line inserts/updates all over the place in code, not bothering to
> set transactions. He didn't understand the impact of what he was doing.
> (Not an Oracle jab by any means - the guy was well-meaning but just not
> prepared.)*
>
> *We got called in because performance went straight into the toilet. Even
> worse, rollbacks were rolling back completely unrelated transactions, and
> nobody knew why, hahaha*.
>
> Ah, that context adds a lot to the assertion. I still disagree that
> autocommit is a good practice for applications, whether it's Oracle or SQL
> Server, but I understand where Brent's coming from.
>
> And my intent wasn't to have "fun", but a sanity check for myself. IT
> changes constantly outside of my narrow focus, and as I've been following
> Brent's blog for years, that entry offers an opinion that is completely
> backwards of my understanding of how any modern RDBMS should work.
>
> So, of course, I ask *Oracle* people about it. :)
>
> Thanks all for the sanity check!
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> //
>
> zztat - The Next-Gen Oracle Performance Monitoring and Reaction Framework!
>
> Visit us at zztat.net | Support our Indiegogo campaign at igg.me/at/zztat
> | _at_zztat_oracle
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l