For the past twenty years we have been trying to get the multivalue Vendors to advertise and market their products. They never have had the inclination to do that for a variety of reasons.
Microsoft on the other hand has spent literally 100's of millions if not billions on advertising. They have beat it into everyone for the past 20 years. It is now a 'standard' to use Microsoft products in any RFP we see in our business. All the under 30's only know Microsoft (and a little Linux) so they don't want to support Unidata or Universe. (fear of the unknown). The biggest argument I have heard time and time again is that you need a programmer to get the data out of Unidata or Universe. Unfortunately in many cases the database design was not made for reporting, so extracting multivalue against multivalues is difficult and forget trying to use subvalues. So we as designers have done it to ourselves in many cases. We all know that our databases are fast, reliable, more efficient and more flexible than any other database. The other thing management says is that it is old. (flat databases are older but no one ever counters with that argument). The ROI is almost never done properly either. To add the staff necessary to support Oracle or SQL is never put as part of the cost as they already have people that are maintaining all their DNS and Exchange servers, so they say they can handle the new system and they rarely if ever are able to maintain it. The bottom line is that SQL has become the 'standard' through out almost every industry. It doesn't matter that you can loose an entire database and have to take days to rebuild it. It doesn't matter that it can and does get infected with viruses all the time. It doesn't matter that the cost of anti-virus software, firewalls, routers, encryption are all add-ons to SQL, because if 'management' believes that they NEED something new they will get it. I could go on and on. Nicholas M Gettino | Director of Support & Professional Services | EnRoute Emergency Systems, an Infor company | office: 813-207-6998 | fax: 678-393-5389 [email protected] | www.enroute911.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [U2] UV to SAP migration disaster There can also be blame at the coalface as well - I know many "pick" guys who really are dinosaurs and who bury their head in the sand if xml, web services, web access etc are mentioned ... -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Glenn Sallis Sent: 20 April 2009 14:48 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [U2] UV to SAP migration disaster It's yet another story that makes people who know and understand the multivalue database model cringe. Often one of the reasons for migrating seems to be due to decisions being made upstairs by people who have not bothered to consult the people with the knowledge to inform of the technical realities and work involved in such a major change. I have noticed over the years that SAP has been very heavily marketed. There is usually a reason for a product needing to be advertised ;-). Just because a product has massive marketing muscle behind it doesn't mean it's the bee's knees. I'm sure this story won't be the last expensive disaster! Glenn Sallis Software Developer Flextronics Logistics B.V ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
