"Doug Hutcheson" <doug.blot.hutcheson / nrm.blot.qld.blot.gov.blot.au> wrote
in message news:QySqc.2189$IH5.98940 / news.optus.net.au...
> Guys, Guys....
> Calm down.
> The propositions put forth by Quirk are becoming lost in a tide of
acrimony.
>
> Proposition 1:
> There are circumstances under which my client is better protected against
> commercial or accidental events, if he possesses source code to the
> application and the underlying database management system.
>
> I agree with that proposition.

It, and the ones that follow are somewhat lost in the fact that it is
largely meaningless.

Proposition 1a.
There are circumstances under which my client is better protected against
commercial or accidental events, if he possesses a contract with a
financially stable vendor of the application and/or underlying database
management system.

Is exactly as true as Proposition 1. Define the circumstances. then relate
them to the real business world.

> Proposition 2:
> There are circumstances under which my client is better protected against
> commercial or accidental events, if I have coded my application in such a
> way (by use of a database abstraction layer) that migrating my application
> to a different database management system is made very easy.
>
> I agree with that proposition.

Proposition 2a

There are circumstances under which my client is royally screwed if he has
an app that does not take advantage of the platform on which it is running,
even if this means being dependent upon that platform.

> Proposition 3:
> There are circumstances under which my client is better protected against
> commercial or accidental events, if he has a human readable backup of the
> database of the type Quirk describes.
>
> I agree with that proposition.

Why do the words filing cabinet come to mind :(

> Note that neither Quirk nor I claim that these propositions always apply
to
> every situation, nor that there are not clear and obvious exceptions.

Well I don't see anywhere that Quirk makes these assertions - though i do
see him claiming that open Source is a better model that closed source.

> However, I must take issue with Noons, who states:
>
> > But, my dear cyber-friend:  no vendor of anything considered
> > base-layer software like databases has EVER changed the product
> > so much that it broke all previous code!  That would be called
> > "suicide" in market terms.  It's never happened, it will never happen!
> > There is NO NEED to work around such an eventuality: it won't happen,
> > it's a wasted effort.
>
>
> There are large companies in our industry who are famous for implementing
> backward-incompatibility in new versions of their software. Further, most
> support is time limited: once the software has reached a certain age, the
> vendor demands that you upgrade (at your cost) if you want to continue to
> receive support and bug fixes. Clearly, that makes good commercial sense
and
> nobody would dispute their right to drop suport for old products, but it
> does lock customers into an "upgrade or else" cost cycle. If a customer
> decides not to upgrade, the vendor has effectively broken the code for the
> customer as soon as the next bug or insecurity is encountered: no support
> means no fix.

Where can I get the security & performance fixes for linux kernel 1.5 - I
don't want to upgrade?

Your suggestion about backward incompatibility also seems to confuse
Microsoft Office with platform software. Even MS - to whom I assume you
refer - have platform software that is backwardly compatible for the last 5
years or so.

> The point here is that current commercial practice by many vendors forces
> clients into expensive upgrades which have no direct commercial benefit to
> the customer. Quirk's propositions present a scenario under which
customers
> have the freedom to choose what to upgrade and how much to spend, based on
> their own business imperatives and not those of a third party on which
they
> depend.
>
> After 25 years in the industry, I know of many organisations which are
> getting heartily sick of spending vast sums of money in knee-jerk upgrades
> (which usually involves staff retraining and other ancilliary expenses) at
> the whim of a vendor. When I am able to offer my customers an alternative
to
> this revenue drain, I am happy to do so. It is not always possible or
> appropriate, but when it is, the benefits are exactly as Quirk has laid
out.
>
> Your mileage may vary.
>
> Kind regards,
> Doug Hutcheson
>
> --
> Remove the blots from my address to reply
>
>