Re: How to force two entities to point to the same lookup value

Bob Badour wrote:
> joel garry wrote:
>
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> >
> >>joel garry wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bob Badour wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>HansF wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:50:41 +0000, Bob Badour wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>It goes without saying that Tom Kyte says everyone should lock
> >>>>>>themselves permanently into Oracle solutions. Oracle pays him to say
> >>>>>>that,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If you had a chance to meet Tom, you would probably retract that statement.
> >>>>
> >>>>I sincerely doubt that I would. I am sure he is a very pleasant man.
> >>>>Regardless of his natural inclination, which I am sure is equally
> >>>>pleasant, Oracle pays him to be pleasant as well.
> >>>>
> >>>>While I have no objection to the profit motive whatsoever, I equally
> >>>>have no compunctions about dismissing puffery as puffery.
> >>>
> >>>The thing about Tom is, he goes through the technicalities
> >>>point-by-point.
> >>
> >>Does he? What are the points he uses to demonstrate that folks should
> >>give his employer a monopolistic franchise over their business?
> >
> > What a kooky thing to say! I mention technical and you morph it to
> > monopoly?
>
> What a kooky thing to say! I mention the incentives an Oracle VP has for
> getting people to give his company a monopolistic franchise over their
> business, and you morph it into a technical discussion?

I'll grant he has incentives, but you have a long way to go to show they make any difference or that he engages in puffery. Are you claiming a technical discussion has no place here? It's pretty nasty of you to accuse someone of puffery if it isn't true.

> >>>>
> >>>>>A rarity, to be sure. And many who worship money foremost will never be
> >>>>>able to believe it.
> >>>>
> >>>>I am not sure what sort of point you are trying to make with your
> >>>>conclusion. Anyone who thinks I worship money would have to be daft or
> >>>>completely ignorant about me.
> >>>
> >>>Well, you implied it about Tom when you said Oracle pays him to say
> >>>things, and Hans seems to be pointing out you made the implication.
> >>>Since you made the implication, it's not a big leap to think you think
> >>>that way. Glad to know you don't.
> >>
> >>I don't recall implying it about Tom either. Nevertheless, his job is to
> >>promote Oracle products. It is in his interest and in his employers
> >>interest for others to lock themselves into Oracle products and out of
> >>competitor's products.
> >>
> >>Giving any company a monopoly on one's business is never in one's
> >>interest. Thus, he does not say these things for the benefit of those he
> >>convinces to lock in.
> >
> > Your logic is severely distorted. You assert monopoly with no basis in
> > fact or argument.
>
> Sorry. Monopolistic franchise is longer to type than monopoly. However,
> locking one's company into a specific vendor does grant that vendor a
> monopolistic franchise by artificially raising the barrier to entry for
> the vendor's competition.

Please define Monopolistic franchise. I can't see any of the common definitions fitting what Oracle does that doesn't describe every other vendor, including scale. And I've previously given examples that indicate this barrier may exist only in your own brain. I see non-Oracle database get data from Oracle every day. What barrier? Standardization across an enterprise?

>
>
> >>None of the discussion initiated by the Oracle crowd or any of what
> >>followed did anything to address the original question. One can draw
> >>whatever conclusions one wants from that about how much the Oracle crowd
> >>care about what the original poster needs.
> >
> > The obvious conclusion was that it was not an Oracle related question.
> > I became involved in this thread when _you_ asserted puffery.
> > Bullshit, and I called you on it.
>
> What, other than puffery, has any of the Oracle crowd provided to the
> original poster? Did any of them address his questions? Did any of them
> post anything other than puffery? If so, I didn't see it.

Now you are accusing me of puffery? I'd swear in several languages if I knew how.

>
>
> >>I see a knee-jerk reaction that defends their own turf while totally
> >>ignoring the original poster's question and dismissing his stated desires.
> >
> > What did his desires have to do with cdos?
>
> cdos? I am not sure what that is. Are you suggesting the oracle crowd's
> reaction to the original poster's question was helpful to anybody or was
> anything other than a knee-jerk reaction to defend their turf?

So.... you're a newbie to usenet? That explains a lot. http://www.dbaoracle.net/readme-cdos.htm#subj2

>
>
> >>>Yes, one should always look more critically upon those have a financial
> >>>interest. One should also not be too quick to dismiss those who do
> >>>have a financial interest, provided they show their work. That's Tom's
> >>>magic: he shows it all so anyone can try it, in terms that anyone can
> >>>understand and replicate.
> >>
> >>And what--succinctly--is the reason anyone should give Oracle a
> >>monopolistic franchise over their business?
> >
> > Just to piss off kooks like you who bring straw men into usenet
> > discussions.
>
> Straw man? I am replying to the actual content DA Morgan and Sybrand
> Bakker wrote. How is that a straw man? They reinforced that content by
> citing a shill for Oracle.

monopolistic franchise has nothing to do with anything posted before you posted it.

>
> The original poster asked some very specific questions regarding
> integrity enforcement. DA Morgan ignored those questions and supplied a
> link to something apparently irrelevant with no explanation of the
> relevance other than the original poster should use it to lock himself
> into an Oracle solution after all--contrary to his explicitly stated
> desires.
>
>
> > What is your basis for claiming a monopolistic franchise?
>
> Did you bother to read what DA Morgan suggested? Or what the original
> poster asked? Mindless idiot.

Sorry, I don't find the suggestion to use something one already has to have anything to do with locking in to anything or monopolies. If Daniel just plain goofed and suggested an inappropriate answer - I don't see any evil there. I do see misinformation in what you spout, that's why I responded to that. I didn't have anything in particular to respond to the OP, so I didn't. That makes me mindless? If you see monopolistic franchise in the OP, you are just insane. I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinfoil_hat

jg

--
_at_home.com is bogus.
BOO!
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060812/news_7m12bell.html