Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : J.D. Edwards debut! (JDEC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: treetopflier who wrote (284)	1/30/1999 5:00:00 PM
From: D. Noll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 583

TTF, I probably overstated my disdain for UNIX. I really am not averse to UNIX. I do not really like or dislike it. It is just another OS product on the market. It's just that I have had the good fortune to work with better products. And, when I get to show someone that AS/400 has everything that AIX has or that NT has everything that HP-UX has, that gets me excited. When I hear a luddite (Unix or otherwise) try to technically critique products he knows nothing about, I have to put in my two cent worth. The value in an ERP software package is derived from the breadth and quality of the applications in the package itself. I think many of the experts (e.g. www.gartnergroup.com) agree that JDEC has the right kind of applications in World and OneWorld. Providing the right features (capabilities, user-interface) in an ERP package is far more important than the underlying OS and database itself. If an application performs well enough for 1000 concurrent users, what difference does it make how they join tables. I like the logic behind network computing (btw a SUN concept). It makes no difference where the data is or what OS is used, the app will run and run well with the right standards-based interface (TCP/IP, C (or java), and SQL) and hardware. It just so happens that OneWorld runs on the most common OS's HP-UX, AIX, OS/400, NT/Alpha, and NT/Intel. I believe there are others. TTF, (if that is your real name?), I would say that I am an expert on JDEC's object oriented design (at least relative to you). I have developed object-based applications with VB and SQLWindows/Centura (excellent OO tool ( centurasoft.com )). I have worked with OneWorld for about 18 months. And yes, I do know how OneWorld does table joins. What of it? Feel free to critique my credentials. I have worked on several OW installations. Prior to that, I worked on installations of a product that interfaces to OneWorld/World. For the last 9 years I have worked in client/server development and support of the AS/400, HP9000, TI, & Intel. I have business and technical degrees. I have had to support and maintain applications (good and bad) written for Windows, AS/400 and UNIX over the course of nine years. My experience has been AS/400 applications are more reliable and easier to support compared to that of HP-UX, AIX and Windows. My experience with Unix shops is that the shortcomings and flaws of the OS are justified by the DBAs who tweak an index here and there for a paycheck. The AS/400 database is like a Maytag and it does not need the Maytag repairman. Of course this does not mean the AS/400 is outdated. The AS/400 has EVERY OS feature of AIX and HP-UX 11 (http, CGI, telnet, ftp servers, etc.). It just so happens that it has these on top of some very cool other features like SMP, clustering, and Java Virtual Machine. There are over 4000 business applications that run on AS/400. Of course I don't have "14 years of large scale project management". What in "project management" should we infer makes you a technical expert? Oh what's the point though, because you know SQL. With all due respect, so what? I will match my SQL skills up against yours any day and I've only worked with it for five years. My 6-year-old son could probably write SQL as well as you!! And that is precisely my point. SQL is so easy, anyone could learn it (and do it well). SQL is great but SQL and ANSI-SQL databases are NOT an end in themselves, technically speaking. The applications that are built on top of SQL databases are what companies want and need. Look at the database companies that have bottomed out in the last five years (IFMX, SYBS, etc.) Database products are fundamentally heterogeneous. Database vendors have to be like water-works utilities. Knowing SQL is like knowing the composition of water (2 atoms H, 1 atom O). Not too hard to know. The bottom line is data and databases have to be cheap, reliable and accessible. SQL is one aspect of this, technically speaking. SQL makes a database cheaper and more accessible. Database types (like yourself) would like to think of SQL as something like the Latin language. Latin is the basis for most commonly spoken Western languages. It is useful to understanding other languages. And it is helpful in getting familiar with cultures. But outside of Vatican City, Latin is only important to other pretensious Latin-philes. And, just because you know Latin, doesn't mean you know how to speak or write French or Italian. Knowing SQL is useful in understanding the various ANSI-SQL databases. Knowing SQL is helpful in building client-server apps. Just because you know SQL and databases doesn't make you an expert in C++, client-server, operating systems and hardware. It would appear to me that you are a jack-of-all-trades and an expert of none. Judging from some of your other postings: Message 7428055 (dumbjokes) Message 7350873 (medical technology) Message 6807845 (gold futures) you feel obliged to inflict your ignorance on everyone. I suggest that if you wish to continue posting technical b.s. in this thread, you at least give your real name. Otherwise your just another short-seller trying to beat his own chest.