Frank quotes:
> 'Claybrook also said it is difficult for open source products to gain
> ground in the market for large, mission-critical applications in major
> enterprises. "When it gets down to serious, big-time database
> uses, I don't
> know of any open source [database] that comes close to Oracle
> or DB2," he said.
> He added that once companies establish a large database with a costly
> proprietary system, it is hard to abandon that investment.
> "If you've been
> using Oracle for 10 years, it's damn hard to switch out," he said.'

This post makes me think of what Alfredo wrote just earlier this month:

Technology-Independent Machine Interface
http://raven.utc.edu/cgi-bin/WA.EXE?A2=ind0210C&L=hp3000-l&P=R10368

and more recently what Wirt posted on Saturday:

OT: On the origin of modularity
http://raven.utc.edu/cgi-bin/WA.EXE?A2=ind0210d&L=hp3000-l&F=&S=&P=27219

If Claybrook wants to put the responsibility on the backs of the database
"company" then those people need to be able to make their product interface
look like DB2, Oracle or the database flavor of the times.  Personally, I
think the application developer should hide vendor-specific database
implementations.  If one can create software modules that are truly
interchangeable, the program can "evolve" with the changing ecosystems.  The
forces behind Image-SQL knew this.  It's high time that application
developers catch on.

BTW, not to lump all programmers together, the Perl people might be heard
saying:
"It will be great if we obfuscate."

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *