Re: An study in thread drift...

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<4174507e$0$20128$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> Original Question: "Can cp be used to backup a hot Oracle database safely"
>
> Homer's answer: "No, because no O/S utility can copy a hot Oracle database
> file without making a mess of the copy's internal structure. You really
> need an Oracle utility that understands the internal structure to perform
> the copy. Being an Oracle utility, it won't make a mess doing it. RMAN is
> that utility"
>
> Jerome's vaguely-useful 'thread drift' answer: "No, but it could be made to
> do so by combining it with 'begin backup' and 'end backup' commands.
> However, this is a much less efficient technique than abandoning cp
> altogether, and using the Oracle-supplied utility called RMAN, which works
> more effectively and with internal optimisations."
>
> Jerome's smartarse answer "Isn't that what hot backups are for?"

Sounds like Homer Kant have heard of Plato, and his teaching method.

>
> -------------
>
> If Jerome posted the first suggested answer, he wouldn't exactly have added
> a great deal to Homer's original advice: he still ends up proposing RMAN,
> after all, just as Homer did earlier. But it is true that he does make
> mention of the fact that begin and end backup commands can actually make
> the original poster's tool work, which is technically true... even if he
> then goes on to dismiss the idea on efficiency grounds. But at least some
> new technical information has been added to the thread. Hence the 'vaguely
> useful thread drift' terminology: new knowledge imparted, even though it's
> not of much practical use to the original poster.
>
> If Jerome posted the second proposed answer, then he's just trying to show
> how clever he is, at the expense of the poor shmuck who posted the original
> question. And it makes Homer's reply look hopelessly inadequate to boot,
> which is a nice bonus.
>
> And if Jerome posted the second AND the first answer, then he's just trying
> to be smart, but yet maintain a veneer of technical fact to defend himself
> with when challenged. After all, he did end up agreeing with Homer's
> original answer about the wonders of RMAN, so what's wrong with that?? You
> can't question his conclusions, after all.
>
> What's wrong with it, of course, is that Homer is sat there wondering what
> on Earth Jerome was thinking of, adding large quantities of text to an
> original answer whose conclusion he ended up agreeing with, whilst yet
> making out that it was hopelessly 'sub-standard' and 'under the weather'.
> Why couldn't Jerome have just shut up, and not confused the matter with
> detail which, given his conclusions, turned out to be irrelevant anyway?
> Does Jerome have a problem with inadequacy that makes him post 'my
> intellect is bigger than yours' style replies??

As with most such questions, Homer should wonder whether that of which he accuses others is really his own problem. Maybe Jerome actually wasn't playing games. Maybe Jerome was actually attempting to give the more correct answer that explains why (rather than a vague answer about "I do know Oracle's internal shenanigans" - <sarcasm>no ego displayed _there_</sarcasm>), followed by the conclusion. Maybe Jerome is just reactive, rather than showing off.

>
> Tune in next time to find out whether Homer is still trying to analyze
> Jerome's motives, or has instead decided to move on to more productive
> things in the hope that Jerome will just eventually snap out of it.

Guess he's still sitting there trying to answer the question, "How does one keep a simp's son in suspense?"

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.thesimpsons.com/episode_guide/0103.htm