Re: Tech Comparison of Oracle versus MS Sqlserver 2000

Jim Kennedy wrote:

> I was at one of those"We must use MS products; they will solve all our
> problems" companies. I left. After burning through 40 million dollars
> they went from being number 1 in their niche market to not having a product
> that anyone would buy. The company basically closed. They focused on the
> BSO (bright shiny object) and not the business needs. They sold going to MS
> products to make development time and expenses less. I had been deep in the
> technical side and I went repeatedly to all levels of management and told
> them that the problem was not knowing what to build, not using the same
> people over again so that we could learn from our mistakes. (These were
> customized pension admin systems for defined benefit plans.) Each on
> started with a brand new team of developers; sure there was a learning curve
> for the toolset, but there was a huge learning curve to the problem. Since
> the new developer wasn't familiar with what had been done before, and how to
> get specs from the customer; it was an expensive process.
>
> But hey, replacing the toolset (with any vendor's tool set) had to be the
> right answer, cause upper management said so. Gosh they has an MS
> consultant come it to give an unbiased view of what they should do.
> Surprise, Surprise, they recommended buying MS tools, signing up for a very
> expensive "exclusive" support contract. (wasn't worth much, but it cost a
> lot)
>
> Anyway I agree with Billy.
>
> Jim
>
> --
> Replace part of the email address: kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com
> with family. Remove the negative part, keep the minus sign. You can figure
> it out.
> "Billy Verreynne" <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za> wrote in message
> news:b08vja$r54$1_at_ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > Norman Dunbar wrote:
> >
> > > I do enjoy your occasional rants :o)
> >
> > I was born to rant. ;-)
> >
> > > The problem in business nowadays is that purchasing decisions are based
> > > on some bean counter deciding yes or no to any requests.
> >
> > Very true. I've witnessed how bean counters turned our support & services
> > division from the _best_ in the country (not we that claimed it, but that
> > we was voted by the business comunity as the best), to one that did not
> > even appear among the top 20 support companies year following. I resigned
> > and walked out.
> >
> > A year later, the _entire_ support division walked (with one or two guys
> in
> > sales) and created their own company.
> >
> > > Alternatively, the business chooses Microsoft because that's what
> > > everyone else is doing.
> >
> > Again, very true. As Branson said, you sell the brand and not the product.
> >
> > > Sad but true, the benefits of one over the other are of no interest to
> > > bean counters, it's the bottom line that counts.
> >
> > Norman, that would not be a problem if they knew how to determine the
> bottom
> > line.
> >
> > There's a book called 'In Search of Exellence' that should be made
> > compulsory reading for bean counters. It shows how 'beanie logic' does not
> > make sense. And putting a single box of supplies in a big truck and
> driving
> > that 50 miles to a customer in the dead of night to resupply him, paying
> > the driver overtime, makes bottom line sense.
> >
> > > And who tells them what the TCO is - the marketing bods, so whoever gets
> > > in with the lowest TCO, usually gets the contract.
> > > And then, when we technical bods have to sort
> > > out the mess/problems/inconsistancies/etc the TCO is never anywhere near
> > > what was quoted, and the company has to put up with it anyway because it
> > > would be too costly to change now .....
> >
> > There must be a balance between technical requirements and business
> > requirements. Which is why I ranted about infrastructure and IT/IS skills.
> >
> > Some years ago I did this Oracle warehouse contract. There were about 10
> > developers. Some of them around for many years. All excellent people with
> > good and solid skills - it was a joy working with them.
> >
> > Then decisions were made about new technology. Architecture changes. The
> IT
> > director did not even bother to listen to his staff. WTF do they know
> > anyway. He listened to the reps and sales people. And decided.
> >
> > 2 years later (after 3 contract extensions) I was the longest serving
> > developer in the company, with the exception of one lady. The rest of the
> > developers all walked.
> >
> > Permanent staff turn over was incredible. One Oracle DBA lasted not even 2
> > months before she walked. The newly employed IT manager walked after a
> > year.
> >
> > Some developers put a sign in the passage. It read 'Whippings will
> continue
> > until morale improves'.
> >
> > Management never accepted that there was anything wrong. And attempted to
> > fix the problem with outsourcing - which just furthered the divides there
> > were in IT.
> >
> > So yeah, I'm not saying that management only, or bean counters only, must
> > make the decision when it comes to technology and architecture. Your
> > techies must be part of the decision.
> >
> > However, I have yet to see that happen personally. And I have been around.
> > :-)
> >
> > It is either an idiotic management decision, or a
> kewl-big-penis-technology
> > decision by a few senior techies.
> >
> > ... and then suckers like us have to make it work.
> >
> > --
> > Billy

I agree with both of you. Especially the part about having enough integrity to walk out: I have and more people should.

Daniel Morgan Received on Fri Jan 17 2003 - 10:38:35 CST