RE: Is a RDBMS needed?

  • From: D'Hooge Freek <Freek.DHooge@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "cicciuxdba@xxxxxxxxx" <cicciuxdba@xxxxxxxxx>, "dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:39:06 +0200

The real weird thing is, that even after paying these expensive licenses, 
companies are still trying to to make use of as little number of features they 
can.
Because this way, the application is database independent ...  yuck

Yes, Oracle database licences are not cheap.
But Oracle also has a lot of features and some of them actually work too.
So, why are companies complaining about expensive licenses when they apparently 
have enough money to pay developers to duplicate and maintain features that are 
already included in their db licences?



Yes, I'm ranting, I know...



Freek D'Hooge
Uptime
Oracle Database Administrator
email: freek.dhooge@xxxxxxxxx
tel +32(0)3 451 23 82
http://www.uptime.be
disclaimer: www.uptime.be/disclaimer
---
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Guillermo Alan Bort
Sent: donderdag 30 juni 2011 14:24
To: dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Is a RDBMS needed?

so you are saying I should learn java (not too much apparently) blame 
everything on the database and miltiply my income four times? sounds good... 
downloading JDK and eclipse. :-P

Now, I don't think it's DBAs that increase the costs of the project, I think it 
the DB Licenses that do.

Oh, let's install a RAC here and why not make it an Active DataGuard... oh, 
wait, we went from the 4k of a SE to 20K in licensing... per CORE... fun! (I 
might be off in the numbers as I've never actually had to deal with licenses... 
but still)

Anyway, luckily (or regrettably?) it is not the case here that developers 
(regular ones at least) are paid more than dbas... :-P not that we get paid a 
lot... I think that speaks to the level of the devs' salaries more than it does 
to the dba's

cheers
Alan.-

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Nuno Souto <dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(pssst, Norman!):

http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/public_html/pages/work.htm

I wrote that in 1998: it was part of my site back then, "the Den".
It's never been more actual!   :-)
Particularly the last section, which nearly explains how Uniface works.
Good design has never gone out of fashion: it's only been ignored by ignorant 
posers parading as "experts".  We gave up on tar and feathers too soon...



-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Dunbar, Norman (Capgemini) wrote,on my timestamp of 30/06/2011 7:57 PM:

Uniface - many years ago - was the only application builder that I would
consider as being able to provide database independence. It had an
"assignment" file which told it to use Oracle (ORA) or SQL Server (MSS)
or plain text (TXT) and so on. Whichever setting was used caused a
different database layer library to be used to query the database. It
worked and it worked well.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l


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

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. oracle-l
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2011