sybrandb (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Highly unlikely.

No survey of database customers I've ever seen has demonstrated a
desire to be orphaned technologically by a company more interested
in short-term profits than developing a long-term viable solution
that supports compliance. No survey published has ever demonstrated
an interest by customers in having an unsupported product.

If you've got metrics collected by an independent research organization
that contradicts the above by all means publish them here.

If not perhaps you should re-examine the basis for your belief system.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org

DA Morgan <damorgan (AT) psoug (DOT) org> wrote in news:1185656303.737286
@bubbleator.drizzle.com:


Don't confuse him with facts when he has already made up his mind.

Ana C. Dent wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.

It is always dangerous to get between a for-profit company's short-term
and short-sighted objective and what it perceives as an open wallet.

I'll killfile this one to avoid stepping in it again.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org

sybrandb (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Wrong on both counts - it's not my decision & our customers aren't in
the dark.

Again, wrong on every count. What's important to our customers is
software that works & meets their business needs, & which is supported
by *us*. You obviously think you know more about our customers
requirements than they do themselves, which frankly doesn't surprise me
(hence the 'Sybrand levels of arrogance' comment).

Well done, you've managed to get that wrong too. All our clients use
'modern' hardware, recent OS & Oracle 10.2.0.2. The only 'unsupported'
software they use is Reports 6i, which is of course supported by us as
the supplier.

Actually it's full of functionality requested by the clients to enable
them to run their businesses. But I'll ring them all up today if you
like & tell them the next release will be delayed a couple of months
because Sybrand says they don't really know what they want, & he knows
better - I'm sure they'll appreciate that.

Yes, that's right. The fact that we've been supplying these
applications for over eleven years without ever hitting a 'show
stopping' bug means it's 'likely' that we'll go out of business because
of one.

So you'd be happy to see a company go out of business, leaving the
employees without a job, just because you don't agree with their policy
regarding one very small part of their application? You really are a
nasty piece of work aren't you.

--
Preston.

DA Morgan wrote:

They have a product supported by *us*, the people who supply it to them.

Try applying your logic to something other than software. If you buy a
new car, say a Toyota, & then discover two years later that the HenSing
Corporation in Japan who make the diode packs for the alternator stop
manufacturing them, would you immediately sell that car & buy a new one
because part of your car is no longer supported by one of the component
manufacturers?

Of course you wouldn't. Your contract is with the supplying dealer, &
Toyota provide the warranty. In the highly unlikely event that the
alternator diode pack fails, the dealer in conjunction with Toyota
would replace it with an alternative.

The only difference with software is some people's attitude to it -
it's just another product. It doesn't suddenly stop working because the
supplier stops supporting it, & as I said before, if it turns out that
Reports 6i doesn't work with a future database release, we will
obviously plan that into the schedule when the time comes.


--
Preston.

Right on Preston, this is what make me sick about Oracle, Microsoft and
others. They say, when it broke replace it don't fix it.

Or worse, we have a new one, the old will not work any longer and you are
stupid to support it.

Microsoft and Oracle are the biggest liers even with that. Microsoft till
very recently or even to this day still still use DEC Vax Clusters for some
of its internal systems that they will not trust to their own Windoze
clusters and OS.

I know that you should stay as current as possible for all the right reasons
but like you we are not a big shop so when the wims of people like Larry and
Bill start flying around people like us have to think what body part is next
to leave behind in order to get there.

WOW, I started this thread to get some feedback but I am sure glad to know I
am not they only one in this.


"Preston" <dontwantany (AT) nowhere (DOT) invalid> wrote

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jerry Alan Braga wrote:
since Forms 4.5 (aka Developer/2000). That is native, not JInitiator!

Removing JVM from Windows - BIIIIGGGG mistake!
Runing on Terminal Server == running on unsupported software == YOYO

- --
Regards,
Frank van Bortel

Top-posting is one way to shut me up...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFGtwRuLw8L4IAs830RAr9OAKCc8YDhebG6TVLSf9CQRM 901vZOUQCdF+Wf
nc5OESr4rZzUdiFvrWXXJ1w=
=37tg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Preston wrote:




I have found that in my work, companies/developers rarely (rarely
are able to) take advantage of what Oracle/MS/IBM has to offer
in their given db because they want to be "database agnostic"
(had interview day before yesterday where that exact
phrase was mentioned).


They also (in the interests of database agnosticity) don't make
use of even the basic features of rdbms's. I worked for a
company which had a client base of *_HUGE_* companies in Britain
(one which I worked on site for had a turnover of £3.8 billion
and employs 32000 people) whose app ran on Oracle which didn't
even make use of foreign keys - Imagine my surprise (two or three
days into the place), querying dba_indexes, user_indexes &c.

*_AND_* this was their major ERM app!!!!!


I thought it was I who was being stupid. If you are thinking of
moving to another reporting tool with Windows as the client,
then I would recommend Delphi and their 3rd party reporting
tools against whatever db you like. Do you have compelling reasons
to stay with Oracle? As you say you are a small software house
with cost-conscious clients - do you really need all its
functionality? Many of the Open Source dbs have excellent
feature sets for those who don't require Oracle's kitchen
sink implementations.


For the benefit of those who bandy about (far too readily IMHO)
that any db which is not Oracle is a "toy", I am not "dissing"
Oracle - it just may not be the best solution for all business
needs.



Paul...