From: Niall Litchfield
Date: 30 Jun 2005
In
On Microsoft and XMLyou comment:
As long as the subject they cover does not require knowledge
offundamentals, journalists can handle it. But if the subject
requires foundation knowledge, they strike out, because all they can
do is regurgitate what vendors say, and are unable to assess it.
Vendors have no such knowledge either, so they develop products based on
laundry lists by users, who are ignorant of the foundation too. The
consequences in such circumstances are, logically, predictable.
This is, I feel somewhat misrepresentative, or at least
ignorant, of vendors. Vendors do, by and large have staff in appropriate parts
of the organisation who are both technically competent and theoretically
educated. Developing products based on a list of features demanded by,
ignorant, users is a function of the capitalist market model under which
business is done today, rather than a sign of ignorance. Whether knowingly
introducing non-features such as the object relational extensions of a few
years back or the mung flat text (sorry XML) documents into a 'relational'
structure common now is responsible is of course another issue - but I don't
see these moves as born out of ignorance, but out of competitive markets. To
that extent it would seem to me that educating the customers would be the
appropriate strategy - but I hold no high hopes for that either.
From: Fabian Pascal
I do not disagree that it's the way capitalism works (well,
not real capitalism, but corporate welfare state, which socializes costs and
privatizes profits, sort of Robin Hood in reverse). But free markets (which the
rich classes want only the lower classes to be subject to, not themselves!)
require informed sellers and buyers to be efficient, and that is certainly not
a characteristic of the US and, increasingly, other countries too, which
emulate them.
But I do disagree that, as a rule, there is vendor competence. I have
plenty of evidence that is not the case, either direct from their
pronouncements (see my series in DBAzine.com, where
I debunk Gray, Stonebraker, Rys et.co. not any less), or indirectly, from their
products. And things are getting worse, not better.
I think we mean different thinks by "technically competent and
theoretically educated". I do not mean just going through a formal
education program, which means absolutely nothing these days (as my evidence on
academia demonstrates), and much depends also on what one does with the
education -- comprehension, intellect, motivation to learn, etc.
Whichever way you look at it, it is dumb and getting dumber. No two ways about
it. So I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.
Posted 8/19/2005
