I wrote: > > Anyone who insists on doing everything with Microsoft > > tools is just as bad as someone who continually > > insists on getting their MV DBMS to do things that a > > DBMS was never meant to do
Glen responded: > Whoah there.. Aren't you mixing up the fruit basket a > bit? MV is not just a data store (like MySQL) and it > makes sense in a lot of cases to integrate external > technology directly into MV. I meant: Anyone who insists on doing everything with Microsoft tools is just as bad as someone who continually insists on doing _everything_ inside their MV DBMS. As you and most others well know, I have no problem getting MV to do neat tricks from the inside or by integrating with the outside world - that's what I do for a living. However, I'm adverse to making MV do everything just because it can (with enough bullying and endless hours of effort) or because people are unaware of external tools that are already well qualified to do specific functions. This is the "right tools for the job" mantra... The ultimate point wasn't about what MV can or can't do but about holistic statements intended to make people look stupid. Posturing like that doesn't solve problems. To get more out of this discussion it would help (where possible) to take a closer look at specific things people do or don't do in failed migrations. What we're seeing is that it's not "idiots who like Microsoft" that are getting into trouble, there are just as many failed GUI projects with Java and FOSS tools. The problem is with people making decisions without knowing where they're coming from or where they're going to. We find people aren't aware of the capabilities of their MV application or of the extensibility of the MV platform. We find people are unaware of the feature-set of new packages that simply look pretty. We find people are unaware of what it takes to put a GUI on an application (or in many cases about what that really means). We find people would rather look for new business software than to put a new UI on their existing app - and since it's the software and not the UI that runs the business, the sheer stupidity of that notion seems to require more discussion. We find that upper management has authority to make decisions about spending money when there is no process for including feedback from the IT department in those major decisions. Is it any wonder that our economy is in the tank due to an endless series of bad decisions? When people say a project failed because someone likes one technology or another, it completely misses other key points like a requirement for due dilligence and accountability. If there were requirements for proper internal analyses and investigation of alternatives, and true accountability for failure, then it wouldn't matter what technologies people preferred or who plays with whom on the golf course - better decisions would be made because all evidence would (generally) point to the better options. This discussion is too deep for a forum, but the blame for failed migrations goes to the very top levels of management and company owners, not because they make bad decisions but because there are no policies in place that stop people from making really stupid decisions. The issue is with process, not preference. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
