Following the re-post of my rebuttal to Dwight Seeley at tdan.com, Ian Callahan contacted both the editor and myself to comment critically on the matter. What follows is my response to both his messages.

 

Mr. Pascal is never shy about criticising anyone who disagrees with him, but to be fair, he usually attacks ("debunks") them on a technical level, responding specifically to their statements or writings. His response to Dwight Seeley was something different.

 

Sorry, it is not sheer “disagreement” that is the issue here, but rather exposure of arrogant ignorance and poor reasoning (or worse). Callahan should be more concerned with Seeley’s disagreement with me, than the other way around, because it is misleading others.

 

There were no technical statements in Seeley's original posting to DM-DISCUSS (or at least, so much of it as was reproduced in the "Setting Matters Straight" column) to debunk. Certainly there was nothing to justify a response which questions Seeley's intelligence, or capacity as a thinker.

In fact, I believe quite the contrary. He demonstrated some quite insightful thought into the role of an industry critic.

 

Exactly. That was one of the points of my rebuttal: that Seeley was criticizing without any technical basis. Therefore, Callahan should direct his reservations to Seeley’s pronouncements, not mine, as I grounded my arguments both logically and technically.

 

Seeley did refer to my intelligence, if only to question it. All I did was to respond in kind and intentionally so. Besides, it is anybody’s prerogative to make judgments about another’s intelligence, if one backs it up with evidence. I did, Seeley did not, but Callahan does not make the distinction.

 

Does Callahan really mean to say that the role of an industry critic is to either implement products himself, or shut up? Because that is what Seeley demanded.

 

Equally, there is nothing to justify a statement like "Well, I can hear Seeley say, a product will 'speak for itself'". Pascal attributes sentiments to Seeley which were never expressed. Instead of responding to imagined shortcomings in Seeley's intelligence and knowledge, Pascal should have answered the questions posed by Seeley. They are the sentences terminated by question marks!

 

Seeley’s position clearly implies adherence to the market religion--he invites me to compete in it with product and obviously believes that the best technology necessarily wins. Besides, “free market religion” is hardly an unreasonable assumption in today’s US (even though it is just propaganda: free market is something forced on the public and labor, not on large corporations and capital—they are always bailed out at taxpayer’s expense when they fail.)

We need Fabian Pascal to "keep the bastards honest". In fact, we need more like him. His (almost) lone-handed fight seems to be a losing one, for now. But his style leads many to categorise him as "bitter and twisted", and to dismiss the good with the evil. How much more effective might he be if his writings carried a little more humanity and understanding of people, instead of technical sense combined with bitter invective?

 

Unfortunately, Callahan still believes in the “reasonable” world, in which I also believed in my youth, where exchanges based on knowledge, substance and proper reasoning. I have learned quite a while ago, and the hard way, that reality is different and that it is a waste of time to use rational discourse and stick to substance in a system based on ignorance—and pride about it to boot—ignorance which not only is not punished, but actually rewarded and promoted in an institutionalized way. There is no better example of this than Seeley’s comments, but Callahan fails to appreciate it.

 

I, therefore, gave up on the industry and call a spade a spade. My comments are addressed only to the minority of thinking practitioners who appreciate it. I am not thrilled to do it and would prefer the world that Callahan suggests, but reality is what it is and I refuse to fool myself into denial.

 

In conclusion, I felt that your Publisher Notes appended to the reposted article came across to me as somewhat biased against Seeley. Although I accept your intention to be fair, honest, and timely, the "he started it" comment, together with the obvious fact that you chose to decline his request to remove the article, seem to suggest that you favour Pascal. My own view is that it is best that others can see and judge Pascal's attack for themselves. You almost said that yourself, but in a qualified way. Mind you, I don't think that having this diatribe up there for all to see will do anything to enhance Pascal's reputation.

 

No, the notes do not mean that the Editor favors my position at all. It means precisely Callahan’s own position: that the readers ought to judge for themselves, rather than have an editor decide what they should or should not see. Which was precisely my argument to the editor and to Seeley in the first place (see the pertinent exchange). It was Seeley who wanted to banish my rebuttal. It never occurs to me to banish others’ comments about myself, no matter how uninformed, critical, or even insulting.

 

By now you will probably have read my email to Robert Seiner about your Silly Seeley column. Please accept that (and this) in the spirit in which it was meant. I do not intend to scorn everything you say, but to say that I felt that particular piece was beneath your normal standards.

 

See above. At this stage in my professional life I have no longer a problem adjusting to whatever “standards” exist out there, no matter how low, if only to demonstrate the absurdity of it all.

 

While I agree with most of what you have to say, I often disagree with the way you say it. There have been a few occasions, for instance, where naive, presumably young, beginners have written to you for advice. The advice they got was an unsympathetic "Come back when you know what you are talking about!" It is for you to choose how you respond to these emails, but I believe it would be more constructive to offer encouragement, together with a subtle shove in the right direction, then abrupt dismissal.

 

It is absolutely amazing that a demand for people to know what they are talking about when they comment publicly is considered a problem. There seems to be a tendency these days to tolerate of arrogant ignorance, but not of exposure thereof. This is upside down and backwards.

 

My “style” so to speak has been carefully selected over a long period and there is a purpose to it, which is rather subtle (isn’t subtlety what Callahan advocates?) Disagreement with it is not a reason to stifle it, which is what Seeley wanted, and Callahan seems inclined to agree.

 

More specifically on the subject of your exchange with Dwight Seeley, I happen to agree with much of the sentiment he was expressing. I do not challenge the merit of what you say about the state of database technology today. But I must question the effectiveness with which you say it. Despite your incessant debunking, the problematic practices seem to multiply and expand, rather than being corrected. As one of the best placed authorities to actually change this course, together with your illustrious colleagues Chris Date and Hugh Darwen, should you not admit that your struggle to now has been in vain? And ask what you can do differently to bring about the revolution you so passionately seek?

 

Callahan deplores “the bastards” (see below), but does not recognize them when he sees them. To reiterate: I am just speaking my mind. I do not believe it is possible to change the industry. Lost cause.

 

To the extent that our “struggle has been in vain”, the loss is not ours, but that of technology users. If they fail to educate themselves, and the Seeleys of the world are allowed to mislead them without being exposed, it is the users who pay the price, not us. Ignorance is such an acute and wide destructive factor, that even my style doesn’t do it justice.

 

Around 10 years ago, I was influenced by your book "SQL and Relational Basics", to eschew the dBase/Clipper/FoxPro style of DBMS (so called), in favour of the more relational SQL DBMSs. (I wound up with Ingres, which seemed a good choice considering Chris Date's obvious liking for it at that time, even though it had pretty much abandoned QUEL for SQL by then.) Imagine my disappointment when I followed a link recently from www.dbdebunk.com (Object Oriented Programming Oversold) to a site which loudly trumpets dBase/Clipper/FoxPro type databases as the best thing since sliced bread. While the immediate link did support one of your arguments, the credentials of its author must be seriously compromised by the rest of the site. Perhaps you should send him a copy of "SQL and Relational Basics".

 

Unfortunately, I did not notice the references to dBase. The reason for linking to that site was the criticism of OO, which I found valid. Since my site is targeted at the knowledgeable, thinking practitioner, I expect my readers to be selective and appreciative of what’s good and filter out what’s bad in material I refer to. Anyway, on further consideration, I deleted the link.

 

Here, for what it is worth, is a suggestion for a new approach to changing the direction of database technology. Find an Open Source DBMS project with the right fundamentals, and get involved. Get seriously involved. Offer, and give, as much design help as you can. Help with the documentation. Help with the web site. Find and enlist programmers with the right attitudes. I am sure you have entrees to universities and colleges where there are bright young developers who have not yet been corrupted by the need to earn a living and the stark reality that earning a living usually involves working on the platform du jour, no matter how inferior it may be.

 

Frankly, this is utterly naïve. As I demonstrate in my writings and lectures, the Open Source community is not much better than the commercial segment of the industry

when it comes to knowledge and appreciation of fundamentals. In fact, as I amply document at DATABASE DEBUNKINGS, some OS practitioners issue even more absurd pronouncements than commercial vendors or “experts” (see Weekly Quotes). That’s because the underlying problems are profoundly systemic and cultural, having to do with the educational system and societal and business culture, not with individual companies, products, or technologies, or individuals.

 

I believe that Open Source is the one avenue currently available which is not bound by the commercial interests which make it so hard to undo all the wrongs that have been done to Codd's baby. That window is closing though. The big players are trying to either manipulate, or stamp out Open Source, depending on where they see their own interests.

 

If that’s what he believes about OS, Callahan should take Seeley’s and his own advice and develop an OS product. I won’t hold my breath.

 

I hope this provokes the best response from you, and please keep flying the TRDBMS flag (but perhaps a little more subtly?)

 

I rather think it has, even though Callahan may disagree. As to subtlety, I use it where appropriate, but it is completely lost on the industry.

 

 

Posted 01/09/04