Re: Where is Oracle’s Grid ?

Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1072745492.601747_at_yasure>...
> Comments in-line.
>
> Joel Garry wrote:
>
> > Only partially agree.
>
> Then lets tackle your disagreements.
>
> If Oracle is going to put out product that
> > purports to have major enhancements to systems management, performance
> > monitoring and diagnostics ( see page 18 on both
> > http://otn.oracle.com/products/oracle9i/pdf/9i_new_features.pdf ,
> > http://otn.oracle.com/products/ias/pdf/904NF.pdf ), then it better
> > work on what's out there,
>
> Short of purchasing PeopleSoft, SAP, Siebel, Baan, etc. how?
> Specifically how can Oracle do that?
>
> Lets use an analogy to get some perspective. You go to the dealership
> and you buy a Ford. If you take it back to Ford for service then no
> question Ford is responsible for the quality of care. And I would argue
> that this is analogous to buying the Oracle database and putting Oracle
> Apps on top of it. In that case Oracle is wholly responsible.
>
> But what you are suggesting is more like I buy a Ford and take it to the
> Texaco station down the street. The mechanic there buys a carburator
> from a parts-house and does a lousy job of installing it on my car.
> Therefore Ford is responsible for the quality of the part my mechanic
> purchased and installed?

If the Ford has OBD-II emissions monitoring hardware _and claims to be able to do it_, then quite possibly I would. Many auto manufacturers are now supporting SEMA (aftermarket parts manufacturing group), and I think it is disingenuous for them to encourage such a thing and then wash their hands of any responsibility while benefitting from the publicity. If Ford knowingly withholds manufacturing interface information that would keep the carb from bursting into flames, I would hold them responsible for that, too.

>
> How can you hold Oracle responsible for the horrible design, coding, and
> deployment of someone that only builds after-market bolt-on parts?

Simply by holding them to what they claim.

More importantly, there must be some recognition of the fact that we don't replace entire systems every 18 months, and must have continuity over time.

>
> > not on what might be out there in a
> > perfectly pure Oracle world. Goes double if it claims to fix things.
>
> What Oracle sells does fix things. But only if someone bothers to read
> the documentation, learn how to use it, and then deploys it in an
> appropriate manner.

No argument there.

>
> >
> > jg
> > --
> > @home.com is bogus.
> > http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20031210-0914-nixontapes.html
>
> I understand yours and other people's angst. I have had more than my
> share of run-ins with Siebel and other app vendors. I've even had
> run-ins with accounting firms that incorrectly installed Oracle's own
> applications.
>
> But before you pull the trigger I'd suggest taking more careful aim.
> Oracle has made plenty of mistakes: Metalink is full of them. But you
> should not blame Oracle for the mistake your firm made buying that
> after-market carburator and having your next door neighbor's teenage son
> install it.

OK, how about if we blame Oracle for breaking V3, V4, V5, V6, V7, V8 and V9 Oracle?

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.ford-v8-focus.com/