Re: Oracle Support Blog
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <420157.5000.qm_at_web38201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
What I find interesting, it that nearly everyone on this list and that I know in the flesh wouldn't use the new Flash format.
Oracle sent surveys out about the new Flash Support and as far as I knew, people that got the surveys all answered the same way.... they were using the Classic and did not like Flash. Even Web Developers I knew, hated the newer version.
Why didn't Oracle listen to their customers?
I understand they needed to do the SSO. But the Flash dashboards that no one liked but it was slow and too cluttered? I think not.
Kathy
- On Wed, 11/11/09, Bill Ferguson <wbfergus_at_gmail.com> wrote:
From: Bill Ferguson <wbfergus_at_gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Oracle Support Blog
To: dbvision_at_iinet.net.au
Cc: daniel.fink_at_optimaldba.com, "Oracle L" <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 9:47 AM
I just left a comment there (on Chris Warwicki's blog), as follows:
Wow!!!!
I was able to actually log in today!
But, it is painfully obvious that one one of my many complaints was totally ignored.
As I've stated several times previously, when I work from home, I connect to the VPN, then establish a Remote Desktop Connection to one of the machines in the office. After mush headache and heartache, I got Flash installed on those machines, so I could attempt to give MOS (or My POS) a fair chance to prove itself. And, as I have stated, this kind of 'connectivity' SUCKS with Flash. It is horrendously slow.
It would be far better to simply offer a selection at login, similar to what the older MOS did, asking if you wanted the Flash or HTML version. Surely I am not the only person this simple change would benefit. It shouldn't take more than two or three lines of code (if that).
So, with that out of the way, I waited and waited and waited (get the picture) for the screen to draw, and eventually went through the "Health Checks" for the machines I work on and manage. I noticed that the OCM metrics were collect within the 24 hours, and started going through them, then comparing them with what the local Database Control had to say about the same systems. It is very interesting that in only a few cases did the metrics match. In almost all cases, what was reported didn't match, not even closely. Problems reported by OCM didn't show as a problem on the local Database Control, and physical inspection of the settings, etc. on the host machine verified that the local Database Control was in fact accurate, while OCM was completely out to lunch.
Since better integartion with OCM, etc. was "supposed" to be one of the criteria why the new MyPOS was created, this seems to be a pretty serious failure. I have absolutely no faith in anything being reported by OCM through MyPOS, and I would absolutely urge all other DBA's to verify the results similar to what I did, before they started trusting ANYTHING reported by MyPOS.
On a final note, any idea if I will ever receive an answer to my biggest question (posted numerous times), on why Oracle's own software was incapable of being used to create a new "Support" site? If Oracle's own software was incapable, why wasn't (or isn't) an effort being made to improve Oracle software so that the features could be made available to Oracle customers, thereby giving Oracle customers less of a reason to spend money with one of your competitors. If the capability does exist with Oracle software to create a "Support" site with the "capabilities" of your competitors software, why wasn't it used instead?
What happened to the 'old days', of "Our software is so good, we use it ourselves"?
-- -- Bill Ferguson -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Wed Nov 11 2009 - 14:06:45 CST