thomas.kyte (AT) oracle (DOT) com wrote:

I am very well-read on that subject, Tom. I am also very well-read on
the logical fallacy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Are you familiar with Date's _Principle of Incoherence_ ? ie: "It is
very difficult to respond coherently to that which is incoherent."

Relevant to this current discussion, it is hard to respond to the
logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" without eliciting an accusation
of "ad hominem". It hardly seems reasonable or valid to blame me for the
quality of the material available for my reply.


Please bear with the length of what follows. The length is an exemplar
of Date's _Principle of Incoherence_ cited above.

If the fee recurs (including forced upgrade fees), if purchase decisions
are dependent on each other, if Oracle charges for expanded use, OR if
use of a feature creates any expensive dependencies, what Tom Kyte says
has no merit.

First, I wonder what sort of arrogance makes you suggest your own books
are worth reading.

Next, I note your position statement here is brief enough Morgan could
have easily substituted it for his appeal to authority, and anyone could
have offered it as a reply to my direct question: "What are the points
[Tom Kyte] uses to demonstrate that folks should give his employer a
monopolistic franchise over their business?" Thank you for finally
offering something from the oracle group that is neither logical fallacy
nor psychotic non sequitur--even if long overdue and incomplete.

Finally, your position sounds good when you say it fast, but there are a
number of factors that can and do render it completely invalid (or at
least incompletely valid.) With respect to the issues of the logical
fallacy of appeal to authority and of the motives of shills, I note in
passing that companies pay shills both to say things that work in the
company's interest and to not say things that work against the company's
interest. The complete omission of any mention of the factors that can
invalidate your position, which I explain below, renders what you wrote
meaningless puffery. Your stated position is neither very true nor very
false. Caveat emptor.

Your position has merit when purchase decisions are independent one-time
decisions and when decisions to use features are independent or offer
savings exceeding the cost of dependence. When "the tools you pay for"
involve a recurring cost, the purchase decision is not a one-time
decision. When "the tools you pay for" involve additional payments for
expanded use, purchase decisions are not independent--especially when
the vendor charges different customers different prices for the
identical product. When the use of a product feature requires or
prohibits the use of another product feature, feature use decisions are
not independent.

As an example of the last point, I cannot use my vehicle's maximum
acceleration and its maximum fuel economy at the same time. However, the
cost of switching between those decisions is negligible so I can use
both features at different times independently. My vehicle's durability
and beauty, on the other hand, are not as independent. If I make maximum
use of my vehicle's impact resistance, it will then cost a great deal to
make maximum use of my vehicle's aesthetic charm. When I paid for the
vehicle, I got both.

As an example of the third point, my vehicle requires no additional
payments for expanded use (ignoring fuel and wear for the moment). I can
use it a little or a lot. I can drive it to another province or another
country or I can lend it to a friend, and neither the company I bought
it from nor the company that manufactured it charges me any extra.
Contrast this with hiring an electrical contractor when building a
building. The contractor specifies a price for what's on the drawings.
If I later decide I want the contractor to install more light fixtures
near the entrances and the parking lots, I have to pay extra for the
expanded use of the contractor's service. Having once written estimating
software for electrical contractors, I note that competitive bids are
bid very near (sometimes slightly below) cost and change notices are bid
at significant multiples to cost.

To illustrate the dependence of purchase decisions, I note that my
vehicle purchase decisions are independent of each other. Having a Ford
today and a Nissan yesterday and a ??? tomorrow don't introduce any
costs. My vehicle purchases do, however, affect my insurance purchases
and can affect my fuel purchases and vice versa. My choice of mechanic
can affect my vehicle purchases and vice versa. My choice of cell-phone
can affect my choice of carrier and vice versa. For the most part,
however, choosing to use a feature of any of those things won't affect
my costs. Suppose, for example, I choose to use the small size of my
compact car when building a garage. That decision will affect my future
purchase decisions or my future use of the garage. Suppose, for example,
I choose to use the load capacity of my 1-ton truck when installing a
wood-burning furnace. Those decisions create dependencies that can
involve significant future costs.

To illustrate the impact of recurring fees, consider the land for a
building site. Suppose the land offers existing AC electric service,
reasonably level ground and good solid clay. I can use the good solid
clay to dig a basement, pour a foundation and build a rock-solid house.
Or I can use the reasonably level ground to park a mobile-home on the
land. In either case, I can use the existing AC service to power my
appliances. Either way, I am paying for the ground so I might make
maximum use of it and build a rock-solid house. Right? But there is a
big difference between buying the ground and leasing the ground. If I am
leasing the ground, I have a recurring cost. If I dig a basement and
pour a foundation, I must either continue to pay that recurring cost
indefinitely or I must pay a large expense to move the house to a new
site abandoning the foundation or I must abandon the house. If I put a
mobile home on the site, I am deciding not to use the good solid
building clay, but I can easily move the home to a new site at the end
of any lease period. My decision to use the alternating current service
has fewer repercussions because many other building sites offer existing
alternating current service or new service at reasonable cost, and if
necessary, I can switch to DC simply by buying a suitable inverter.

To decide whether what Tom Kyte says has merit, one must ask:

* Is the Oracle license a one-time purchase or a recurring subscription
fee? Even if nominally one-time, will anything force recurring upgrade fees?

* Are my dbms purchase decisions independent of each other? If I decide
to create another system using a dbms, will I want to use what I already
have?

* Does Oracle charge an additional fee for expanded use like additional
users or additional servers?

* Does the use decision force any dependencies? If so, at what cost?
Does using a feature limit or preclude the use of any other features? If
so, at what cost?

If the fee recurs (including forced upgrade fees), if purchase decisions
are dependent on each other, if Oracle charges for expanded use, OR if
use of a feature creates any expensive dependencies, what Tom Kyte says
has no merit.

SDO forces dependencies on Oracles PL/SQL stored procedures and on
Oracle's proprietary design. If SDO is exactly what someone was going to
create on their own and if they can use it without any further effort or
cost, then the decision to use it is obvious. Even if one must later pay
the price of re-creating to use a different dbms, one has at least
deferred that cost. However, if SDO is not exactly what one was going to
create, then whether to use it depends on 1) the incremental cost of
using it, 2) the incremental cost of switching to a different vendor if
necessary and 3) the probability of needing to switch.

Given that the original poster expressed concern about cross-vendor
portability, I assume he rationally weighed the factors I mention (and
possibly others) to decide that the potential to switch vendors has some
attraction. From what I read about SDO, it bears no resemblance to the
original poster's requirements suggesting significant cost to use and
significant cost to refit to a different vendor.


(i actually wrote words exactly to that
You are being disingenuous. Drug dealers emphasize the cost of free
samples to their potential customers and the availability of liberal
credit to their potential distributors too--regardless of who is
offering the samples or the credit.


Are you suggesting that the existence of shills for other companies
makes you any less a shill or makes appeals to their authority any less
fallacious?


Some people actually desire this, find this
If what you wrote had had merit instead of being mere puffery, believing
that your writing maximizes customer ROI would be rational. As it is,
doing so is not rational. Lucky for you, not everyone is rational.


I am sure that gives you plenty of opportunity to implement solutions
that lock people into your company's software. I doubt Oracle would have
made you a VP if you locked people out instead.


If you have to say, "Tom Kyte said so and if you read every word he ever
wrote you would agree" is much, much weaker. Given that what was
suggested was predictably exactly what any other Oracle shill would
write, we could replace it with "An Oracle shill said so and if you read
every word he ever wrote you would agree" without changing the meaning
or import of the words. The logical fallacy of an appeal to authority is
very weak. Combined with obvious motive for bias an appeal to authority
is even weaker.



You are stating something as fact without any
The supporting information was the "VP Oracle" after your name and the
observable facts regarding who would likely benefits from the suggestion
vs. who might be burdened by it. I don't recall whether the "VP Oracle"
was presented in this thread, but it is readily available to anyone who
looks. It's probably the first thing anyone would see if they were
trying to "read what Tom Kyte wrote" as suggested to me (your publishers
seem to think it enhances your credibility or something.)

The observable facts regarding costs and benefits were 1) DA Morgan's
post, 2) the documents at the other end of the link he gave, and 3) the
original poster's original post. It doesn't take much to infer the
balance of benefits favours Oracle and to infer the balance of costs
burdens the original poster. It really doesn't.


I've seen some of your other
I will leave it for others to decide who should know better.


But I am not the one who said it: DA Morgan did. I merely pointed out
how superfluous (and hence pointless) it was when he said it.


My case was never limited to that. My case always included the
observable fact that the suggestion was very much in Oracle's financial
interest and very likely contrary to the original poster's interest.

The fact that you are a shill and that shills advance their companys'
interests without quite as much regard for their prospects interests
sufficed to demonstrate that I probably would not have to read
everything you ever wrote to understand (and dismiss) your
position--despite DA Morgan's suggestion to that effect. To use it to
demonstrate risk of bias is not a fallacy at all.

Combining apparent bias with a logical fallacy sets the bar pretty low.
Wouldn't you agree?


Do I shill my own products? Yes. I exhibit bias regarding my products
and services. I think everyone should have all of them, and those who
have all of them should have multipe copies of them. If you have never
bought any, you should. If you have, buy more.


Yes.


Non sequitur. Unless you are saying that SDO is 90% of Oracle's
functionality, which I think many of your customer's would find surprising.

Unlike many software developers, I have always made sure my services and
products are as replaceable as possible. (I suck at marketing.)


I disagree. If your focus were not on maximizing value for Oracle's
shareholders, you would not be a VP. Suggesting that you do anything
else is disingenuous.

Insofar as Oracle's customers' interests sometimes align with Oracle's
shareholders', what you do will sometimes maximize their value. Insofar
as Oracle's customers' interests sometimes conflict with Oracle's
shareholders', what you do will sometimes cost them.

There is plenty of empirical evidence here that encouraging the original
poster to build a solution around SDO may cost that customer more than
it benefits him. It doesn't take long for an objective third party, such
as myself, to reach that conclusion. It takes a lot more than "read
every book written by some Oracle VP" to make me conclude otherwise.


I make the more general point as well
Now who is using ad hominem? The merit of your position, as established
at length above, is tenuous at best given the factors you omit. I base
my position on costs and benefits not good and evil, which means even
your fallacious argument lacks a key component.

[puffery snipped]


Strictly speaking, 'shill' is poor diction. You divulge your employment
by Oracle, so you are technically not a shill. Insofar as you pretend to
advance any interest other than your own or the interest of Oracle's
shareholders, you are not too different from a shill though. While a
more accurate term would be 'hack', I exercise a little license for the
sake of communication. Readers more reliably understand that the issue
is hidden or denied bias when they read 'shill'. Some would assume
'hack' refers to the quality of your writing rather than the motivation
for it.


Just felt the need to point
No problem. Indulge your feelings all you want. I don't mind. It's not
like the logical fallacy was at the core of my argument or anything.

[more puffery snipped]


Hey! I resemble that remark! I happen to find frangible woozle muffs
very humorous, and I find a lot of what is written in this thread funny
as all hell. The appearance that some of the humour might be unintended
only enhances it.


P.S. Now that you have had the opportunity to come forward and present
your position, I have to say the empirical evidence only confirms that
bias does render what you write incoherent. Since life is short and
since I don't have time to compose coherent replies to every effortless
incorehent post, I am adding you to my killfile. Plonk!

Bob Badour wrote:

then one might question your need to respond if you find it difficult?

Oh, it absolutely is not. All you need to do is point out to the poster
that "hey, you know what you just did, you just used 'appeal to
authority'. that does not an argument make"

It was not an accusation - it was a statement of fact. You state that
I am a shill, therefore anything I have to say is therefore
discredited. Your statements could be the examples on the wiki.

You seem to have done the incoherence bit yourself. You say the only
way to respond to a logical fallacy is...... with a logical fallacy.
No, don't present a sound argument, no, that won't do, you fight fire
with fire.

(the locator feature DM suggested is a for free feature of the for free
version of Oracle on up)

I never said that were, I merely pointed out that you used an ad
hominem attack to discredit them out of hand, without having read them.
You are doing precisely what you are accusing everyone else of doing.
Circular argument. Nuff said.

[much rambling about how you don't like software licenses snipped -
forget for a moment that the people are paying the license and you
propose not to use what they are paying for - and forgetting for a
moment that the choice to subscribe or not is up to you - and
forgetting for a moment that there is even a free version (call it
kool-aid if you like)]

....
haha, excellent. goal achieved. Have a nice day. But don't
underestimate yourself - I've seen your other responses out and about -
you do seem to have the time.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:15:07 GMT, Bob Badour
<bbadour (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote:

I'm sure everyone will profit more by killfiling you, as you
contribute only flames.

--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

Sybrand Bakker wrote:

I suppose you prefer to curse the dark than light a candle.

Bob Badour wrote:
Depends: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDRev...jerry/tom3.jpg

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.polarblairsden.com/othertigerwoman02.html