"Joel Garry" <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote in message
news:1109640158.812020.233540_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >I tend to side toward those that wish to dissolve the group if only
>>because I fail to see that they have brought any value to us. What
>>they have standardized is so inconsequential that the cost and
>>difficulty of moving between products is still a substantial barrier.
>
> I think that is just more recent. I think standards groups have a life
> cycle like so many other things, and the first decade or so this one
> probably had a profound positive effect. The fact that in a commercial
> world there is going to be a strong economic motivation towards db
> balkanization really only took over in the latter '90s.
>
> I don't really take a position one way or another on dissolution, but I
> would hope that at least trying for standards is better than
> unconstrained db lockin. And since Bill and Larry both seem to realize
> it's the applications over all, they have their own agendas which
> probably don't agree with ours. Of course, standards as a code word
> for oligopoly is a danger, too.
SQL standardization is a farce for the most part, (something I can actually
agree with Danny boy on) the vendors should just free themselves from the
reigns and some serious product advancement could happen. I don't
particularly like db lockin... I do like choice and portability... but has
there been any real leaps made in the SQL world lately? Nothing
significant, advancement is glacial at best.
Received on Mon Feb 28 2005 - 22:46:57 CST
