Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:40b5ca15$0$8988$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> Galen Boyer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Success of open source isn't solely dependent on the purchaser
> > tinkering. One thing you could do, if it was open source, was
> > hire someone who specialized in that technology to fix it for
> > you. With closed source, the only option you have is Oracle
> > releasing a patch or new version. Thats it.
> >
>
>
> Sorry, no. You are assuming that:
>
> 1- it somehow needs fixing from the word go. Nothing says that
> is the case. When you buy an app using a db, you expect it to work.
> Period. If it does, you pay for the purchase. If it doesn't, you send them
> packing and get another vendor in. What the heck do you need source code
> for?
>
> 2- "Hiring someone specialised" is somehow magically cheaper than
> getting a piece of software of the appropriate vintage. At a time
> when software is getting cheaper and cheaper and development costs
> more expensive by the minute, the entire theory of "source code included"
> is nothing more nothing else than pure unadulterated shite.
>
> And that is the bottom line. I know that I'd like to have the source
> code and tinker around with it like Kim suggested. But the economic
> reality nowadays is that it is pure financial suicide to rely on source
> code to "fix" anything. The costs of hiring the right people to
> make that code usable (and maintaining it in a usable form) are
> astronomical compared to just getting a new release upgrade.
>
> Did you know that 30 years ago it was quite common to buy the OS
> for your system WITH the source code included? It turned out to be
> so expensive to even attempt to do anything with that source code that
> the whole idea was abandoned ages ago.
>
> I'm sorry, but this whole "source code included" rubbish is old hat:
> the industry has been there, done that, and found it was unworkable.
> About time we learned from history instead of just repeating the same
> errors in a never-ending circle.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam

In addition, with a support contract I can hold a vendor's feet to the fire to fix the problem in short order. (assuming I have a reliable test case and assuming it is a defect and a critical defect) True, not all vendor's are necessarily responsive, but the good ones are. I have had a few critical cases with Oracle that required a patch that did not exist and once I

1. Came up with a reliable test case. (And they were very willing to help with this)
2. Make a case that this case a critical business need. (I had to get a VP of our company to send an email. )
3. The error was a defect, not an enhancement. No problem, this was easy to do. They reproduced the problem and I had a patch in 4 hours. True Step 1 took 3 weeks, but Oracle went the extra kilometer and even loaded our software on their machine over a Thanksgiving weekend to reproduce the problem. Yes, I had to walk them through it, but they were available. Try that with other major software vendors.

Yes, we had to pay annual maint. Yes, we had to pay for Oracle. Yes, we had to pay them for every copy of our application that went out the door (we provided an Oracle run time). But we got exceptional service and we were a very small company. Never got that type of service from other large software vendors.

So is Oracle expensive? Not for the value one gets. Why do people buy at Nordstroms? They have high quality clothes and exceptional service. People percieve value for their money. It is a differentiator. If you look at any highly sucessful competitive market, the market leader (the one making the most money or biggest gross) is doing it better from the customer's point of view.

Jim Received on Thu May 27 2004 - 08:47:40 CDT