tim@ohday.sybase.com (Tim Wood) (07/14/90)
In article <8468@arctic.nprdc.arpa> carroll@nprdc.navy.mil (Larry Carroll) writes: >This is a call for discussion for creation of the newsgroup >comp.database.oracle. This newsgroup would cater to the specific >needs for Oracle developers and users. > >Comp.databases is generic in nature, covering most all database >packages. I see a real need for information specific to >the Oracle community. > >-- > Larry Carroll carroll@nprdc.navy.mil > Computer Programmer/Analyst ..ucsd!nprdc!carroll > Navy Personnel R & D Center > San Diego, CA (USA) At the risk of being dismissed out of hand as an apologist for a competitor, I claim that vendor-specific groups (for DBMSs) would be counterproductive as a whole. The database market is changing rapidly. Vendors are working hard hard to deliver features, power and services that distinguish their products from the others. Since all these products deal in the common coin of SQL, they offer (superficially, at least) the promise of application portablility among them. This portability assurance will become stronger as the ANSI SQL standard is finalized and vendors come into compliance with it. For these reasons, it is important to have a single forum in which users of the many database products can discuss their applications needs, solicit advice, discuss theory and its applications in real products, and learn what database users at large are doing. Users with a permanent commitment to a particular product can filter the discussions with the news reader tools to select only those articles which address the product they use. Posters to comp.databases can aid this selection process by naming in the subject field the vendors or products (if any) they discuss in their articles. (Generally, posters seem to do this already.) Vendor-specific newsgroups would create more work for those interested in comparatively evaluating products. Since the discussions would be segregated by vendor, it would be much harder to conduct a discussion of the trade-offs among products. Current users, too, would be disadvantaged. They might not hear of new concepts they could use (or emulate pending a product enhancement) in their applications because discussion of the concept originated in "that other vendor's newsgroup." The database market today is too competitive and product developments too tightly coupled (in terms of their implications for other products) to make vendor-specific newsgroups worthwhile. IMHO, -TW --- Sybase, Inc. / 6475 Christie Ave. / Emeryville, CA / 94608 415-596-3500 tim@sybase.com {pacbell,pyramid,sun,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!tim This message is solely my personal opinion. It is not a representation of Sybase, Inc. Ohday.
bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig) (07/19/90)
In article <8468@arctic.nprdc.arpa> carroll@nprdc.navy.mil (Larry Carroll) writes: |This is a call for discussion for creation of the newsgroup |comp.database.oracle. This newsgroup would cater to the specific |needs for Oracle developers and users. | Article <10099@sybase.sybase.com> by tim@ohday.sybase.com (Tim Wood) says: |At the risk of being dismissed out of hand as an apologist for a competitor, |I claim that vendor-specific groups (for DBMSs) would be counterproductive |as a whole. Yes, I couldn't agree more on Tim's comments. The comp.databases group is one of the better ones on this wonderful net with a very high signal/noise ratio, and the current habit of putting a product name in the subject, when it is product specific seems to work all right. If we were to create comp.databases.<product> I don't think you as the users or our-selves as vendors would benifit very much, and the amount of traffic on comp.databases is not by itself enough to justify a split. -- Bjorn Engsig, Domain: bengsig@oracle.nl, bengsig@oracle.com Path: uunet!mcsun!orcenl!bengsig