“I am using the deductive argument, which means that if all the propositions are true, the conclusion must also be true.”
Well, the cost figures are wrong.
(Oracle Standard Edition One can be licensed for 2 physical CPUs at $4995 USD per CPU – not 30K).
Check the Oracle Store. This is not a negotiated at the end of a quarter one-time special deal type thing.
Anyways, discounts are included in tpc reports, so if they’re good enough for the appendix of a report up on tpc.org, its good enough for me.
It then follows (tongue in cheek):
I am using the deductive argument, which means that if one of the propositions is false then the conclusion must also be false.
The costs are wrong.
The facts are wrong.
The conclusion is wrong.
Great. Now I don’t even have to read any further. One false is all that was required.
This one I cannot pass up:
“SQL Server Is Easier to Manage than SQL Server” (typo)
Hmmm. A tautology. Not.
I can’t argue with that statement 😉
lets create an objective function that evaluates to a number, call it
cost_to_manage( ).
If something is easier to manage then its cost_to_manage should be less that something that is less easy to manage.
the only function that I can think of that would be non-deterministic enough for that would contain dbms_random, which would still make more sense than the poster of TFA.
He goes on to spread a one page article over 4 pages just to show more ads (don’t even bother reading page 4). I read TFA and I’m still looking for any sort of logic in it, that wasn’t flawed (and/or biased).
Oh, no problem! I should have included a smiley to make it clear that I think it’s a silly article. Not only do I disagree with it, but I can’t take it seriously precisely *because* it pretends to be serious!
I thought it might be briefly entertaining for some people 😉
Doug –
Nothing personal, just quoting from TFA:
“I am using the deductive argument, which means that if all the propositions are true, the conclusion must also be true.”
Well, the cost figures are wrong.
(Oracle Standard Edition One can be licensed for 2 physical CPUs at $4995 USD per CPU – not 30K).
Check the Oracle Store. This is not a negotiated at the end of a quarter one-time special deal type thing.
Anyways, discounts are included in tpc reports, so if they’re good enough for the appendix of a report up on tpc.org, its good enough for me.
It then follows (tongue in cheek):
I am using the deductive argument, which means that if one of the propositions is false then the conclusion must also be false.
The costs are wrong.
The facts are wrong.
The conclusion is wrong.
Great. Now I don’t even have to read any further. One false is all that was required.
This one I cannot pass up:
“SQL Server Is Easier to Manage than SQL Server” (typo)
Hmmm. A tautology. Not.
I can’t argue with that statement 😉
lets create an objective function that evaluates to a number, call it
cost_to_manage( ).
If something is easier to manage then its cost_to_manage should be less that something that is less easy to manage.
so it then follows that:
cost_to_manage(‘SQL Server’) < cost_to_manage(‘SQL Server’)
the only function that I can think of that would be non-deterministic enough for that would contain dbms_random, which would still make more sense than the poster of TFA.
He goes on to spread a one page article over 4 pages just to show more ads (don’t even bother reading page 4). I read TFA and I’m still looking for any sort of logic in it, that wasn’t flawed (and/or biased).
TFA is flamebait at best.
-bdbafh
” Doug –
Nothing personal, just quoting from TFA:”
Oh, no problem! I should have included a smiley to make it clear that I think it’s a silly article. Not only do I disagree with it, but I can’t take it seriously precisely *because* it pretends to be serious!
I thought it might be briefly entertaining for some people 😉
Cheers,
Doug
Good lord, I almost spill my coffee when I read that article. And the author professes to be an IT professional (SQL Server DBA, no less) 😄
Peter,
I know! As I mopped the coffee off my t-shirt, I thought it best if I let people decide for themselves rather than expose my immediate thoughts.
I suspected I could count on more considered comment :-
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com/2005/12/logical-errors.html
http://radiofreetooting.blogspot.com/2005/12/manageability-oracle-fan-gets.html
But in the end I felt it was so silly that it wasn’t even worth challenging. (Maybe I’m wrong about that, though …)