Re: How to perform a health check?

wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message news:<73e20c6c.0410041942.4cc00066_at_posting.google.com>...
> joel-garry_at_home.com (Joel Garry) wrote in message news:<91884734.0410041034.2dac8bc1_at_posting.google.com>...
> >
> > But it's a moving target. I wouldn't want to be held to what IBM
> > thought 20 years ago what a DBA should be, nor to writing T-SQL stored
> > procedures all day.
>
> You'd be surprised how similar it would be to what Oracle
> proposes now!
> Same old same old: check space, check errors, check security,
> manage ids and authorisations, tune performance.
> The difference is that IBM provided the tools to do all that.
> Oracle provides OEM...
>
> It's a maker proposing a definition. Flawed and biased,
> of necessity.
>
> > > > If I wanted another "defacto standard", I'd stay with
> > > > M$ and not bother about Oracle.
> >
> > See above!
>
> Exactly. Proprietary definitions.
>
> >
> > Now that you mention it, it is pretty condescending.. :)
>
> So is OEM...

What you say is true and correct. However, standards committees are just groups of vendors, aren't they? I think the real problem is you can't have standards (of the sort I think you propose) before the db products because the products are evolving too fast. Remember all the hoopla about unix style operating systems? All that got blown away by linux. Because linux was written by a bunch of people saying "get it done now and make it work with what is out there." Then sorta-standardized after the fact.

If you are advocating academic-style standards setting, that will just be way too slow and will never become useful, except as lecture fodder for the Fabian Pascal's of the world. Government-pushed standards can be useful for booting industries, though.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Your dvd standard is obsolete: 
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041004/news_mz1b4blue.html