Re: An Oracle question

From: Nikita <Nikita@yahoo.com> > >And complexity isn't necessarily a vice either. So, I take it you have >worked extensively with Oracle, and went back to Informix because >Oracle was "too hard"? Well, Unix is complex, NT not -- which is a better >product for large scale environments? (I know the answer). >Oracle is more complex than SQL Server, and again the same question >applies. In my very distant youth, a comp sci lecturer introduced me to a very subtle distinction: that of sophistication vs elegance. Oracle is sophisticated (needlessly complex), Informix is elegant (clean, well-though-out design). >I don't see complexity as a vice -- most often it requires/allows much more >fine tuning, knowlege of what's actually going on with the product, >more flexibilty etc. etc. etc. I am not a big fan of "well just give me a >button to push or an icon to click so I don't have to know what's happening >and I >don't have to know what I am doing" mentality. Neither am I. The problem of the one-click solution, is that you have no way of coping with subtle, unplanned-for problems. I have rarely felt the urge to ask someone for another tunable parameter in the Informix config file. (Notice, I didn't say "never" :-) >In terms of Informix scalibilty, maybe they have come a ways in that arena, >but they haven't been know in the past to be a highly scalable database. >You are right in terms of Oracle's Marketing, it is Oh? Depends on who you ask. At least they didn't have to diddle their engine to compete in TPC benchmarks, in the days when they still did benchmarks. >In terms of what I have based my statements upon, it's what I see out there >and what recruiters are saying. I have never run into an What *recruiters* are saying? I never met a recruiter who could switch a bloody PC on, let alone one who even knew the difference between a database and an operating system. And just because there are more Oracle jobs out there, doesn't mean it's a better product. If I may quote an advert from BMW I saw a long time ago: "Other manufacturers deals may look good on paper, but remember, you still have to drive the car." >ex-Oracle DBA saying they bailed because they thought Informix was better. Meet Mr Art Kagel. >Well, better get to work. Thanks for your viewpoints. No, no, no. You can't just start a fight and then walk away!! :0) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Well, I am kinda busy :-) Clarification on the recruiter statement tho... I was talking about what plaforms companies are running, and thus what their recruitement needs are. Yes, I have seen Art's postings, but have also been in several Oracle classes where half the class was "Informix bailers". Now, don't go flaming that comment by saying you know Oracle DBA's escaping to Informix as well.... Does it matter? Nope. I'm sure I'll find Informix to have its advantages over Oracle, and vice versa. Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > From: Nikita <Nikita@yahoo.com> > > > >And complexity isn't necessarily a vice either. So, I take it you have > >worked extensively with Oracle, and went back to Informix because > >Oracle was "too hard"? Well, Unix is complex, NT not -- which is a better > >product for large scale environments? (I know the answer). > >Oracle is more complex than SQL Server, and again the same question > >applies. > > In my very distant youth, a comp sci lecturer introduced me to a very subtle > distinction: that of sophistication vs elegance. Oracle is sophisticated > (needlessly complex), Informix is elegant (clean, well-though-out design). > > >I don't see complexity as a vice -- most often it requires/allows much more > >fine tuning, knowlege of what's actually going on with the product, > >more flexibilty etc. etc. etc. I am not a big fan of "well just give me a > >button to push or an icon to click so I don't have to know what's happening > >and I > >don't have to know what I am doing" mentality. > > Neither am I. The problem of the one-click solution, is that you have no way > of coping with subtle, unplanned-for problems. I have rarely felt the urge > to ask someone for another tunable parameter in the Informix config file. > (Notice, I didn't say "never" :-) > > >In terms of Informix scalibilty, maybe they have come a ways in that arena, > >but they haven't been know in the past to be a highly scalable database. > >You are right in terms of Oracle's Marketing, it is > > Oh? Depends on who you ask. At least they didn't have to diddle their engine > to compete in TPC benchmarks, in the days when they still did benchmarks. > > >In terms of what I have based my statements upon, it's what I see out there > >and what recruiters are saying. I have never run into an > > What *recruiters* are saying? I never met a recruiter who could switch a > bloody PC on, let alone one who even knew the difference between a database > and an operating system. > > And just because there are more Oracle jobs out there, doesn't mean it's a > better product. > > If I may quote an advert from BMW I saw a long time ago: "Other > manufacturers deals may look good on paper, but remember, you still have to > drive the car." > > >ex-Oracle DBA saying they bailed because they thought Informix was better. > > Meet Mr Art Kagel. > > >Well, better get to work. Thanks for your viewpoints. > > No, no, no. You can't just start a fight and then walk away!! :0) > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

No, I have never stated that Oracle is a "better" product, as I am sure they both have their strengths and weaknesses. However, the fact remains that most companies with large scale operations and needs choose Oracle. Now, you can say that it's only because Oracle has better marketing, but that is not true, or we would find a lot more NT vs. Unix in larger environs. It may be a little bit of both .. Marketing, Oracle's reputation (and YES, they do have a good product), and Informix's screwups over the last few years. And if I really wanted to start a war, I would have cross-posted a long time ago :-) Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > From: Nikita <Nikita@yahoo.com> > > > >And complexity isn't necessarily a vice either. So, I take it you have > >worked extensively with Oracle, and went back to Informix because > >Oracle was "too hard"? Well, Unix is complex, NT not -- which is a better > >product for large scale environments? (I know the answer). > >Oracle is more complex than SQL Server, and again the same question > >applies. > > In my very distant youth, a comp sci lecturer introduced me to a very subtle > distinction: that of sophistication vs elegance. Oracle is sophisticated > (needlessly complex), Informix is elegant (clean, well-though-out design). > > >I don't see complexity as a vice -- most often it requires/allows much more > >fine tuning, knowlege of what's actually going on with the product, > >more flexibilty etc. etc. etc. I am not a big fan of "well just give me a > >button to push or an icon to click so I don't have to know what's happening > >and I > >don't have to know what I am doing" mentality. > > Neither am I. The problem of the one-click solution, is that you have no way > of coping with subtle, unplanned-for problems. I have rarely felt the urge > to ask someone for another tunable parameter in the Informix config file. > (Notice, I didn't say "never" :-) > > >In terms of Informix scalibilty, maybe they have come a ways in that arena, > >but they haven't been know in the past to be a highly scalable database. > >You are right in terms of Oracle's Marketing, it is > > Oh? Depends on who you ask. At least they didn't have to diddle their engine > to compete in TPC benchmarks, in the days when they still did benchmarks. > > >In terms of what I have based my statements upon, it's what I see out there > >and what recruiters are saying. I have never run into an > > What *recruiters* are saying? I never met a recruiter who could switch a > bloody PC on, let alone one who even knew the difference between a database > and an operating system. > > And just because there are more Oracle jobs out there, doesn't mean it's a > better product. > > If I may quote an advert from BMW I saw a long time ago: "Other > manufacturers deals may look good on paper, but remember, you still have to > drive the car." > > >ex-Oracle DBA saying they bailed because they thought Informix was better. > > Meet Mr Art Kagel. > > >Well, better get to work. Thanks for your viewpoints. > > No, no, no. You can't just start a fight and then walk away!! :0) > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

And unfortunately for Informix, investors are growing very tired (as seen by this posting). "I sold _ of IFMX shares at a considerable loss. Only yesterday I was trying to convince myself that the strategy as depicted in the two years I have been following IFMX was correct, but $10 a share is a threshold of a simplicity I can't argue against. That price should have been ferociously protected: now the stock is trading in single digits. It is not a matter of play money anymore, I am deeply offended by what seems a callous lack of care for shareholders' interests. I understand that IFMX legal history dictates that risking forecasts or detailed performance guidance would paint a big target on the company, but no pragmatism can disguise management from what they actually are coming across as: people conveniently hiding and hidden from responsibility, not to mention disenfranchised from the majority of investors (apparently very fetching though to a small cadre of industry specialists who represent only 25% of the company ownership.) I am now contemplating my options, and any which way I look at the matter I find myself only guessing. Guessing only on the pros, that is: cons are solid. Today Gartner/Dataquest issued a story where I learned that IFMX shrank, losing more than 10 percent of its clients' pool in the last calendar year, a period that saw the db industry growing by leaps and bounds; only yesterday IFMX was the target for a ridiculous "hold" with a $8 year price; and boringly, I would like to add that the stock precipitously dropped 60% in a matter of few weeks. I listened to the cc ad nauseam and it seems to me that, in light of the recent events, IFMX is asking investors for yet another leap of faith rather than providing significant leadership and solid ideas of a profitable future. So, in short, I would like you to provide me with the positive ideas I need to pit against the seriousness of my IFMX investment loss. Furthermore, I really would like you to refute or correct with reasons any and all of my assumptions and perceptions." I have a feeling this was an exercise in futility. Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > From: Nikita <Nikita@yahoo.com> > > > >And complexity isn't necessarily a vice either. So, I take it you have > >worked extensively with Oracle, and went back to Informix because > >Oracle was "too hard"? Well, Unix is complex, NT not -- which is a better > >product for large scale environments? (I know the answer). > >Oracle is more complex than SQL Server, and again the same question > >applies. > > In my very distant youth, a comp sci lecturer introduced me to a very subtle > distinction: that of sophistication vs elegance. Oracle is sophisticated > (needlessly complex), Informix is elegant (clean, well-though-out design). > > >I don't see complexity as a vice -- most often it requires/allows much more > >fine tuning, knowlege of what's actually going on with the product, > >more flexibilty etc. etc. etc. I am not a big fan of "well just give me a > >button to push or an icon to click so I don't have to know what's happening > >and I > >don't have to know what I am doing" mentality. > > Neither am I. The problem of the one-click solution, is that you have no way > of coping with subtle, unplanned-for problems. I have rarely felt the urge > to ask someone for another tunable parameter in the Informix config file. > (Notice, I didn't say "never" :-) > > >In terms of Informix scalibilty, maybe they have come a ways in that arena, > >but they haven't been know in the past to be a highly scalable database. > >You are right in terms of Oracle's Marketing, it is > > Oh? Depends on who you ask. At least they didn't have to diddle their engine > to compete in TPC benchmarks, in the days when they still did benchmarks. > > >In terms of what I have based my statements upon, it's what I see out there > >and what recruiters are saying. I have never run into an > > What *recruiters* are saying? I never met a recruiter who could switch a > bloody PC on, let alone one who even knew the difference between a database > and an operating system. > > And just because there are more Oracle jobs out there, doesn't mean it's a > better product. > > If I may quote an advert from BMW I saw a long time ago: "Other > manufacturers deals may look good on paper, but remember, you still have to > drive the car." > > >ex-Oracle DBA saying they bailed because they thought Informix was better. > > Meet Mr Art Kagel. > > >Well, better get to work. Thanks for your viewpoints. > > No, no, no. You can't just start a fight and then walk away!! :0) > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

but of course you guys will like this one better :-)) http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/ellison_ego.html Nikita wrote: > And unfortunately for Informix, investors are growing very tired (as seen by > this posting). > > "I sold _ of IFMX shares at a considerable loss. Only yesterday I was trying to > convince myself that the strategy as depicted in the two years I have been > following IFMX was correct, but $10 a > share is a threshold of a simplicity I can't argue against. That price should > have been ferociously protected: now the stock is trading in single digits. > It is not a matter of play money anymore, I am deeply offended by what seems a > callous lack of care for shareholders' interests. I understand that IFMX legal > history dictates that risking forecasts > or detailed performance guidance would paint a big target on the company, but > no pragmatism can disguise management from what they actually are coming across > as: people conveniently > hiding and hidden from responsibility, not to mention disenfranchised from the > majority of investors (apparently very fetching though to a small cadre of > industry specialists who represent only 25% > of the company ownership.) > I am now contemplating my options, and any which way I look at the matter I > find myself only guessing. Guessing only on the pros, that is: cons are solid. > Today Gartner/Dataquest issued a story > where I learned that IFMX shrank, losing more than 10 percent of its clients' > pool in the last calendar year, a period that saw the db industry growing by > leaps and bounds; only yesterday IFMX > was the target for a ridiculous "hold" with a $8 year price; and boringly, I > would like to add that the stock precipitously dropped 60% in a matter of few > weeks. > I listened to the cc ad nauseam and it seems to me that, in light of the recent > events, IFMX is asking investors for yet another leap of faith rather than > providing significant leadership and solid ideas > of a profitable future. > So, in short, I would like you to provide me with the positive ideas I need to > pit against the seriousness of my IFMX investment loss. Furthermore, I really > would like you to refute or correct with > reasons any and all of my assumptions and perceptions." > > I have a feeling this was an exercise in futility. > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > > From: Nikita <Nikita@yahoo.com> > > > > > >And complexity isn't necessarily a vice either. So, I take it you have > > >worked extensively with Oracle, and went back to Informix because > > >Oracle was "too hard"? Well, Unix is complex, NT not -- which is a better > > >product for large scale environments? (I know the answer). > > >Oracle is more complex than SQL Server, and again the same question > > >applies. > > > > In my very distant youth, a comp sci lecturer introduced me to a very subtle > > distinction: that of sophistication vs elegance. Oracle is sophisticated > > (needlessly complex), Informix is elegant (clean, well-though-out design). > > > > >I don't see complexity as a vice -- most often it requires/allows much more > > >fine tuning, knowlege of what's actually going on with the product, > > >more flexibilty etc. etc. etc. I am not a big fan of "well just give me a > > >button to push or an icon to click so I don't have to know what's happening > > >and I > > >don't have to know what I am doing" mentality. > > > > Neither am I. The problem of the one-click solution, is that you have no way > > of coping with subtle, unplanned-for problems. I have rarely felt the urge > > to ask someone for another tunable parameter in the Informix config file. > > (Notice, I didn't say "never" :-) > > > > >In terms of Informix scalibilty, maybe they have come a ways in that arena, > > >but they haven't been know in the past to be a highly scalable database. > > >You are right in terms of Oracle's Marketing, it is > > > > Oh? Depends on who you ask. At least they didn't have to diddle their engine > > to compete in TPC benchmarks, in the days when they still did benchmarks. > > > > >In terms of what I have based my statements upon, it's what I see out there > > >and what recruiters are saying. I have never run into an > > > > What *recruiters* are saying? I never met a recruiter who could switch a > > bloody PC on, let alone one who even knew the difference between a database > > and an operating system. > > > > And just because there are more Oracle jobs out there, doesn't mean it's a > > better product. > > > > If I may quote an advert from BMW I saw a long time ago: "Other > > manufacturers deals may look good on paper, but remember, you still have to > > drive the car." > > > > >ex-Oracle DBA saying they bailed because they thought Informix was better. > > > > Meet Mr Art Kagel. > > > > >Well, better get to work. Thanks for your viewpoints. > > > > No, no, no. You can't just start a fight and then walk away!! :0) > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com