December 16, 2011 at 8:05 pm
L' Eomot Inversé (12/16/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
SAP = BlechSAP = a lot worse than just Blech
In addition to many of the faults I already knew about, it is SO fussy.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
December 17, 2011 at 3:07 am
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (12/16/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
SAP = BlechSAP = a lot worse than just Blech
In addition to many of the faults I already knew about, it is SO fussy.
Don't call it faults. Those are features you haven't been charged for. Yet.
It's still interesting how such a piece of cr** can spread so widely just because of marketing. :sick:
(I'm more than confident it can't be because of functionality or performance or cost or maintainability...)
December 17, 2011 at 6:00 am
Revenant (12/16/2011)
GilaMonster (12/16/2011)
Revenant (12/16/2011)
Next RC is in February, and I bet it will be fixed.It's not a Denali bug. It's been reproduced in everything from SQL 2000 right up to SQL 2012 CTP 3.
Now SQL 2000 and 2005 are out of support, so it may not get fixed there, but that leaves SQL 2008, SQL 2008 R2 and SQL 2012, all of which need the bug fixed.
Yes; however, as 2012 goes RC, I will push the guys to have it fixed. There may be a fix for 2008 and R2, but I do not know those schedules.
Another answer from MS / connect :
Unfortunately, we're crossing a couple of information systems which aren't always in sync. The bug which the developers see is no longer marked as "won't fix", and that changed status will replicate to the Connect system soon.
As I said, meanwhile we are working on getting an acceptable fix for this. We have tested out a couple of approaches, but the side-effects were unacceptable. We know precisely what it takes to trigger the bug, so that goes a long ways to helping us find and test a fix.
Again: We have not stopped work on this bug. We have just noted that it won't ship in PCU2.
December 17, 2011 at 8:47 am
LutzM (12/17/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (12/16/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
SAP = BlechSAP = a lot worse than just Blech
In addition to many of the faults I already knew about, it is SO fussy.
Don't call it faults. Those are features you haven't been charged for. Yet.
It's still interesting how such a piece of cr** can spread so widely just because of marketing. :sick:
(I'm more than confident it can't be because of functionality or performance or cost or maintainability...)
I think it is also partly a lack of competition.
We're having database backup problems. Apparently SAP has big problems if 3rd party software is used for anything it touches.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
December 17, 2011 at 8:55 am
LutzM (12/17/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (12/16/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
SAP = BlechSAP = a lot worse than just Blech
In addition to many of the faults I already knew about, it is SO fussy.
Don't call it faults. Those are features you haven't been charged for. Yet.
It's still interesting how such a piece of cr** can spread so widely just because of marketing. :sick:
(I'm more than confident it can't be because of functionality or performance or cost or maintainability...)
I think part of the reasin it's so widespread is that some consulting firms advise people to buy it knowing that it's so horribly difficult to do anything with it that the consulting firm will make lots of money helping them to get it to do anything useful.
Tom
December 17, 2011 at 9:04 am
L' Eomot Inversé (12/17/2011)
LutzM (12/17/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (12/16/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
SAP = BlechSAP = a lot worse than just Blech
In addition to many of the faults I already knew about, it is SO fussy.
Don't call it faults. Those are features you haven't been charged for. Yet.
It's still interesting how such a piece of cr** can spread so widely just because of marketing. :sick:
(I'm more than confident it can't be because of functionality or performance or cost or maintainability...)
I think part of the reasin it's so widespread is that some consulting firms advise people to buy it knowing that it's so horribly difficult to do anything with it that the consulting firm will make lots of money helping them to get it to do anything useful.
Actually, it's a rather interesting marketing concept:
At the beginning, the'yre talking to upper management telling them how many companies in the related market already use it.
Since the projects usually involve a rather large amount of money, noone from upper management would accept it failed (even if it did). And there's the next customer being referenced by that vendor... (even if the poor customer needs a heavy amount of Excel and ACCESS licenses to stay in busines....). Sad.
Edit: Don't forget that you'll have to change the way you're doing your business in order to follow the built-in processes of the "product". Not the other way around...
December 17, 2011 at 3:54 pm
LutzM (12/17/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (12/17/2011)
LutzM (12/17/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (12/16/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
SAP = BlechSAP = a lot worse than just Blech
In addition to many of the faults I already knew about, it is SO fussy.
Don't call it faults. Those are features you haven't been charged for. Yet.
It's still interesting how such a piece of cr** can spread so widely just because of marketing. :sick:
(I'm more than confident it can't be because of functionality or performance or cost or maintainability...)
I think part of the reasin it's so widespread is that some consulting firms advise people to buy it knowing that it's so horribly difficult to do anything with it that the consulting firm will make lots of money helping them to get it to do anything useful.
Actually, it's a rather interesting marketing concept:
At the beginning, the'yre talking to upper management telling them how many companies in the related market already use it.
Since the projects usually involve a rather large amount of money, noone from upper management would accept it failed (even if it did). And there's the next customer being referenced by that vendor... (even if the poor customer needs a heavy amount of Excel and ACCESS licenses to stay in busines....). Sad.
Edit: Don't forget that you'll have to change the way you're doing your business in order to follow the built-in processes of the "product". Not the other way around...
That's not how it works. I do not want to swamp you with my conclusions -- and I have been around like 30+ years --; but if you want me to share, I will.
December 17, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Revenant (12/17/2011)
LutzM (12/17/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (12/17/2011)
LutzM (12/17/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (12/16/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/16/2011)
SAP = BlechSAP = a lot worse than just Blech
In addition to many of the faults I already knew about, it is SO fussy.
Don't call it faults. Those are features you haven't been charged for. Yet.
It's still interesting how such a piece of cr** can spread so widely just because of marketing. :sick:
(I'm more than confident it can't be because of functionality or performance or cost or maintainability...)
I think part of the reasin it's so widespread is that some consulting firms advise people to buy it knowing that it's so horribly difficult to do anything with it that the consulting firm will make lots of money helping them to get it to do anything useful.
Actually, it's a rather interesting marketing concept:
At the beginning, the'yre talking to upper management telling them how many companies in the related market already use it.
Since the projects usually involve a rather large amount of money, noone from upper management would accept it failed (even if it did). And there's the next customer being referenced by that vendor... (even if the poor customer needs a heavy amount of Excel and ACCESS licenses to stay in busines....). Sad.
Edit: Don't forget that you'll have to change the way you're doing your business in order to follow the built-in processes of the "product". Not the other way around...
That's not how it works. I do not want to swamp you with my conclusions -- and I have been around like 30+ years --; but if you want me to share, I will.
Sure, I'd love to hear why anyone would buy this monstrosity.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
December 17, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Revenant (12/17/2011)
...That's not how it works. I do not want to swamp you with my conclusions -- and I have been around like 30+ years --; but if you want me to share, I will.
I'm very interested in your conclusions.
December 17, 2011 at 4:45 pm
OK - here it's how it works.
Roll back say 20 years. IBM rules the corporate databases with its IMS and DB2. There is a newcomer called Oracle with their really aggressive marketing campaign -- think the Red Barron shot down --, and a bunch of also-rans such as Informix, Adabas, Natural, Supra, and yes, indeed, SQL Server, at that time a joint venture between Sybase and Microsoft.
If you are, say, SAP, the tried-and-true marketing tack is to talk to the CTOs who used, say, Natural to develop their enterprise systems, who are now, understandably, way behind the schedule and over the budget and who will be fired with full pomp and circumstance right after their next status report presentation to the Board. Chairman of the board has their letter of resignation in his folder, dutifully perpared by his Assistant. Just sign here and you have 90 days paid, we do not expect you to show up, and we hope you will really enjoy that time you want to spend with your family.
So if you are say SAP, you talk to a guy who is on the bubble, and if he buys your pitch, your (formidable) marketing staff prepares his next presentation explaining why it is actually the fault of those Natural guys who assured him (and we have the e-mails!) that their product would scale but it did not, and he is just an innocent victim of Natural's marketing hype. And man, those SAP guys are backed by Oracle and run by Oracle's former CVP, right?
Now you have a boy who will make your pitch why [say] SAP is the right way to go, apologize that you have not seen it sooner -- "you know, technology is changing REALLY fast, who would have thunk" -- and if he survives, he will be forever committed to SAP, Microsoft, or whatever solution was better than Natural and saved his bacon. NOTE -- if the guy does not survive, no one gives a hoot, even less after 15+ years.
So the real question, in my experience, is not to ask whether SAP is good or bad, but how many guys' asses it saved when it was brought in, and how many guys hold their current well-paid jobs just because they have more years of [SAP] experience "in this domain" than anyone else.
December 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Are the people who use SAP called saps*?
* A foolish and gullible person
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
December 17, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Revenant (12/17/2011)
OK - here it's how it works.Roll back say 20 years. IBM rules the corporate databases with its IMS and DB2. There is a newcomer called Oracle with their really aggressive marketing campaign -- think the Red Barron shot down --, and a bunch of also-rans such as Informix, Adabas, Natural, Supra, and yes, indeed, SQL Server, at that time a joint venture between Sybase and Microsoft.
If you are, say, SAP, the tried-and-true marketing tack is to talk to the CTOs who used, say, Natural to develop their enterprise systems, who are now, understandably, way behind the schedule and over the budget and who will be fired with full pomp and circumstance right after their next status report presentation to the Board. Chairman of the board has their letter of resignation in his folder, dutifully perpared by his Assistant. Just sign here and you have 90 days paid, we do not expect you to show up, and we hope you will really enjoy that time you want to spend with your family.
So if you are say SAP, you talk to a guy who is on the bubble, and if he buys your pitch, your (formidable) marketing staff prepares his next presentation explaining why it is actually the fault of those Natural guys who assured him (and we have the e-mails!) that their product would scale but it did not, and he is just an innocent victim of Natural's marketing hype. And man, those SAP guys are backed by Oracle and run by Oracle's former CVP, right?
Now you have a boy who will make your pitch why [say] SAP is the right way to go, apologize that you have not seen it sooner -- "you know, technology is changing REALLY fast, who would have thunk" -- and if he survives, he will be forever committed to SAP, Microsoft, or whatever solution was better than Natural and saved his bacon. NOTE -- if the guy does not survive, no one gives a hoot, even less after 15+ years.
So the real question, in my experience, is not to ask whether SAP is good or bad, but how many guys' asses it saved when it was brought in, and how many guys hold their current well-paid jobs just because they have more years of [SAP] experience "in this domain" than anyone else.
That explains the legacy systems and is kind of how I figured those were around. Now explain sales in the last 5 years, especially to mid-size companies.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
December 17, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Today, they are called "visionaries" or "ahead of the curve."
(This was a reply to SQL Kiwi.)
December 17, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Stefan Krzywicki (12/17/2011)
Revenant (12/17/2011)
OK - here it's how it works.Roll back say 20 years. IBM rules the corporate databases with its IMS and DB2. There is a newcomer called Oracle with their really aggressive marketing campaign -- think the Red Barron shot down --, and a bunch of also-rans such as Informix, Adabas, Natural, Supra, and yes, indeed, SQL Server, at that time a joint venture between Sybase and Microsoft.
If you are, say, SAP, the tried-and-true marketing tack is to talk to the CTOs who used, say, Natural to develop their enterprise systems, who are now, understandably, way behind the schedule and over the budget and who will be fired with full pomp and circumstance right after their next status report presentation to the Board. Chairman of the board has their letter of resignation in his folder, dutifully perpared by his Assistant. Just sign here and you have 90 days paid, we do not expect you to show up, and we hope you will really enjoy that time you want to spend with your family.
So if you are say SAP, you talk to a guy who is on the bubble, and if he buys your pitch, your (formidable) marketing staff prepares his next presentation explaining why it is actually the fault of those Natural guys who assured him (and we have the e-mails!) that their product would scale but it did not, and he is just an innocent victim of Natural's marketing hype. And man, those SAP guys are backed by Oracle and run by Oracle's former CVP, right?
Now you have a boy who will make your pitch why [say] SAP is the right way to go, apologize that you have not seen it sooner -- "you know, technology is changing REALLY fast, who would have thunk" -- and if he survives, he will be forever committed to SAP, Microsoft, or whatever solution was better than Natural and saved his bacon. NOTE -- if the guy does not survive, no one gives a hoot, even less after 15+ years.
So the real question, in my experience, is not to ask whether SAP is good or bad, but how many guys' asses it saved when it was brought in, and how many guys hold their current well-paid jobs just because they have more years of [SAP] experience "in this domain" than anyone else.
That explains the legacy systems and is kind of how I figured those were around. Now explain sales in the last 5 years, especially to mid-size companies.
It is the old IBM tack "No one ever got fired for using IBM."
Today, using SAP will not get you fired. Especially, when $50k per module lincese is less than a rounding error on your company's balance sheet.
December 17, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Revenant (12/17/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (12/17/2011)
Revenant (12/17/2011)
OK - here it's how it works.Roll back say 20 years. IBM rules the corporate databases with its IMS and DB2. There is a newcomer called Oracle with their really aggressive marketing campaign -- think the Red Barron shot down --, and a bunch of also-rans such as Informix, Adabas, Natural, Supra, and yes, indeed, SQL Server, at that time a joint venture between Sybase and Microsoft.
If you are, say, SAP, the tried-and-true marketing tack is to talk to the CTOs who used, say, Natural to develop their enterprise systems, who are now, understandably, way behind the schedule and over the budget and who will be fired with full pomp and circumstance right after their next status report presentation to the Board. Chairman of the board has their letter of resignation in his folder, dutifully perpared by his Assistant. Just sign here and you have 90 days paid, we do not expect you to show up, and we hope you will really enjoy that time you want to spend with your family.
So if you are say SAP, you talk to a guy who is on the bubble, and if he buys your pitch, your (formidable) marketing staff prepares his next presentation explaining why it is actually the fault of those Natural guys who assured him (and we have the e-mails!) that their product would scale but it did not, and he is just an innocent victim of Natural's marketing hype. And man, those SAP guys are backed by Oracle and run by Oracle's former CVP, right?
Now you have a boy who will make your pitch why [say] SAP is the right way to go, apologize that you have not seen it sooner -- "you know, technology is changing REALLY fast, who would have thunk" -- and if he survives, he will be forever committed to SAP, Microsoft, or whatever solution was better than Natural and saved his bacon. NOTE -- if the guy does not survive, no one gives a hoot, even less after 15+ years.
So the real question, in my experience, is not to ask whether SAP is good or bad, but how many guys' asses it saved when it was brought in, and how many guys hold their current well-paid jobs just because they have more years of [SAP] experience "in this domain" than anyone else.
That explains the legacy systems and is kind of how I figured those were around. Now explain sales in the last 5 years, especially to mid-size companies.
It is the old IBM tack "No one ever got fired for using IBM."
Today, using SAP will not get you fired. Especially, when $50k per module lincese is less than a rounding error on your company's balance sheet.
Not at mid-sized companies, that's expensive!
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
Viewing 15 posts - 32,686 through 32,700 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply