"Quirk" <quirk / syntac.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4e20d3f.0405070707.96af5a2 / posting.google.com...
> "Volker Hetzer" <volker.hetzer / ieee.org> wrote in message news:<c7fl8s$bjo$1 / nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com>...
> 
> > "Quirk" <quirk / syntac.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4e20d3f.0405070046.50c2d5dd / posting.google.com...
> 
> > > > That's not true. 
> 
> > > Yes it is.
> 
> > What was the value of this reply?
> 
> What was the value of yours? Or this latest one?
A question is not an answer.

> 
> > > > The main problem is not the right to the source code
> > > > but the right to get maintenance.
> > > 
> > > With out the right to modify the source code you can have no "right to
> > > maintenenence" as all rights are held by one vendor, exactly the sort
> > > of dependency I recomond avoiding.
> 
> > I do have the right to maintenance, because that's in the contract. Very 
> > simple.
> 
> Yes, you have the right to be overcharged for work that may or may not
> not suit your needs by only _one_ vendor, and no right to go elsewhere
> when they fail, ignore you outright, stop supporting your application
> or vanish from the face of the earth. Have you actually read your
> contract or software licence?
Of course. See the end of this posting.

> It only protects the vendor, not you.
I've read  the licence and done even more: I've used the software and tested the contract.
> 
> > > > The right to modify is a red herring.
> > > 
> > > Not if your application and the permenancy of your data is important.
> 
> > You didn't read my posting, right? 
> 
> You are one funny guy. Really. I'll bet you're the first guy in usenet
> to ever ask this question rhetoricly.
Nice way of avoiding an answer.

> 
> > I don't *want* to create my own development
> > team competing with the original one. I don't want to merge my change back 
> > into their code with every new release! I don't want to develop code and
> > then have them decide whether they condescend to incorporate it or not! I 
> > want the authors of the software to do the coding based on what I'm willing 
> > to pay for!
> 
> You are dependent on their licence
I'm dependent on the author's licence regardless of which database I use.
It's just that some licences give me the illusion of being able to do something
while mainly giving me in reality the ability to shoot myself in the foot or paying
someone else to shoot me in the foot.

> because you built your own
> application on top of a platform for which you have no source code,
Same question: Did you read what I wrote?
I don't care about the source code, I care about product and support
quality. And, since I am not the developer of the software, nor is anyone else,
apart from *the* developers, anyone else is going to make a worse job than
them. So, I get the best support when I'm paying them and no one else.

> and no right to modify, you then also have no leverage with the vendor
> of the orginal software.
> 
> You have no rights at all, wether or not you are willing to pay.
Read oracles licence some time. There it says very clearly what
you get if you enter a support agreement.

> 
> > Elegant coding... The holy grail of software engineering. Why am I 
> > spontaneusly reminded of http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/
> > dilbert-20040417.html ?
> 
> I dunno, because you're culturaly issolated and have a poor
> imagination?
No, it's because the phrase "elegant coding" is just as empty.
Or as the phrase "the one true god" uttered by people of
different religions.

> 
> > For db computing, reducing server load is the important thing. 
> 
> No, it is not, in most cases CPU is not the most limited resource.
> 
> > Interoperability
> > typically means primitive, network/db intensive sql.
Yup. Which, in a well configured db is CPU load because
caching, indexing and db specific sql takes care of the i/o load.
Nevertheless, I concede, it *is* possible to have such a
horribly configured system that i/o load becomes an issue. It's also
possible to have a database that permits so few actions
that the dba can't do anything about a badly written app.
fortunately, oracle is different.

> 
> No, interoperability means abilty to integrate applications in a
> heterogeneus environment. It means standards and flexibilty.
So? What's more "standardised" about mysql's socket interface than
about oracles OCI or ESQL?

> 
> > > > If it's important it must not matter whether one tries to
> > > > access the data from a local or remote machine.
> 
> > > Interesting that you believe that this can not be accomblished with
> > > network security.
> 
> > Yes. Now you figure out why.
> 
> Because you don't know what you are doing maybe?
Wrong. Try again.

> Oh wait, you don't
> need to, after all, you have decided to pay a vendor to know for you,
> I remember now.
Right. The alternative is not paying anyone and trying to figuring out the
source code on my own, right? Or paying someone else who starts
from scratch too?

> 
> > > Yes, a securely configured database, protected by a secure network,
> > > the later being far more important!
> 
> > A network will alway have holes, simply because legitimate users
> > have to get through and legitimacy can change while they are in.
> > Therefore you protect the data where they are. In the db.
> 
> If your network has holes, then your database is insecure, because I
> can get right at the filesystem blobs, the reverse however is not
> true.
Care to elaborate? An insecure network does not mean that someone can
log on to the database server from anywhere but the console screwed onto
it. And securing the listener (in case of oracle) is part of the database
configuration.

> 
> > > What is it about "Self Contained, Self Describing, Human Readable"
> > > that you do not understand?
> 
> > The fact that you believe such a thing exists. Unless you mean a printout
> > of the database contents.
> 
> What is it about "Self Contained, Self Describing, Human Readable"
> that you do not understand?
See above.

> 
> > > > In any case, permanency across more than two major database or other
> > > > software releases is difficult, regardless of the format.
> 
> > > For unskilled labour, yes.
> 
> > Right. You show me how do convert VENUS chip designs into Synopsys
> > without going into a museom for the original hardware and getting all
> > the versions in between.
> 
> What does this have to do with "Self Contained, Self Describing, Human
> Readable" files that can be read on any system past or present?
It has to do with permanency. Try to read what you quote.

>  
> > > That is why vendor educated developers who
> > > can not see passed their favourite commercial product should not be
> > > asked for advice on this subject.
> 
> > Get some real world experience.
> 
> Wow. Not only a comedian, but also a master logician.
> What a compelling argument,
Thanks.

> tell me, how much do you know about my
> experience,
What your arguments tell me.

> and why do you feel that talking about _me_ is a response
> to my argument?
Because your argument isn't backed by anything. Give me some
substance and we can talk about it. All I've hear so far is the
usual open source rethoric about me or someone else being able
to magically support a product in a few days or weeks after the
original developers have abandoned it, or me.

> 
> > > If you have the source code, you are the developer,
> 
> > Wrong. I am the user, t.
> 
> Oh, well then I guess we have nothing further to discuss, my comments
> here where meant for actual developers.
So, oracle people should further develop oracle and mysql people
mysql. Did I get this right?

> 
> > > if you contract an
> > > outside developer or licence an existing product, fine, as long as you
> > > have perpetual access to the source code and the *right* to modify it,
> > > or contract someone else to. If you do not, than you can not gaurantee
> > > the permenance of your application.
> 
> > When will you get it, I don't *need* the right to modify it as long as I
> > have the right to have it modified by the guys who wrote it in the first plac
> > and are competent at it.
> 
> You have no such right, ever, the only right you _can_ have is the
> right to modify it yourself or contract someone to do it. Please read
> your licence.
"Assistance with my SRs 24 hours per day, 7days a week". Practically I usually
get two or three guys working on a typical SR of mine, depending on how
log it takes. Without a contract I'd get a 'buzz off, I'm doing my exams this month'.

Volker