It seems to me your bank is just using the wrong approach here. Why not
add a second system that links the data from the old system with data
from a new system? Compare it to building houses. If you have one house
with 4 floors, you can often add one or two more floors without having
to bread down the old building. Sometimes you will need to add some
reinforcements within the current building and perhaps adjust the
current roof but hey, it is possible. And if you really can't put
anything on top of it, put something next to it since that is always a
better solution than tearing down an existing solution and then hope
you'll get something back that is as reliable as the old one...
Replacing a well-proven system by an unproven new one is always a big risk. One flaw could become quite expensive...
Best posts made by Katja
-
RE: The redneck knows about us...
-
RE: The redneck knows about us...
I think the problem with Oracle is that they don't know which platform to support so they use Java to create a GUI that's supposed to be supported by all platforms. Of course not even Java is truly platform-independant but okay. They've created something, it's crap but hey, it also works!
Oracle is primarely interested in optimizing the database and they don't care that users need to set thousands of tweak options to get it running in the most optimal way. Other databases have all kinds of tools and wizards that will just estimate the best settings for their database but this is something Oracle just can't think about. They're in the business of storing data so who cares about user-friendly installations?
Besides, the revenue from all those people who need to be certified Oracle geeks is quite high as long as the product is popular. Since Oracle is a major player on the Unix market, where most geeks dislike user-friendly tools in the first place, I don't think they will change their ways any moment soon...
Of course you can consider SQL Server a better product because it's more user-friendly and every moron can use it. But SQL Server only runs on the Windows platform and is considered hopelessly insecure because Windows needs to be patched about twice per week or so, to fix a bunch of vulnerabilities and buffer overflows. And then I haven't even started about all those computer virusses on the Windows platform. No, from a security point of view, Oracle is better because it requires professionals to set it up and it can be installed ion an Unix platform that is less likely to be infected with virusses or cracked by hackers.
At least, that's what most people think anyway...
Of course SQL server is also insecure because most people who install it just use default settings and thus end with mostly default usernames and passwords. And it might leave too many ways open to access the server too. Dumb users will create very vulnerable SQL Server installations but they fill fail at installing Oracle properly...
And as long as there's no serious competition on the Unix platform, Oracle will probably stay in business too. Of course, DB2 is a good alternative, yet with similar weaknesses. Too complex for the average user. InterBase is a lot easier to install and more user-friendly but it's not really capable of handling the huge pressure that many larger companies will have to deal with.
For personal use, MySQL or Access are much better alternatives anyway. But all those "minor" databases fail if they have to deal with the amount of data that average Oracle/SQL Server/DB2 databases have to deal with. These are the big players and as long as they don't have any serious competition, they will just do whatever they like... -
RE: Idea for new section
@F8less said:
That would be
744000 Mils (1 Mil is 0.03 mm)
0,369 Rods (1 rod is 5.5 Yards)
2834,64 Points (1 point is 0,0003527 Meters)
18600000000 Angstroms (1 Angstrom is 100.000.000 Meters)
1,2433321301086912926643404323587e-11 AU's (Astronomical Units, 1 AU is defined as the mean distance between the earth and the sun is 149.597.870.691 Meters)
6,0278442654581595095603311457822e-25 Parsecs (1 parsec is 3085680250000000000000000 Meters).
There ya go. I'd just simply say she's too tall, 186 is 10cm bigger than me, and that makes feel tiny. Wich doesn't do very much for my already small self-esteemI have to disappoint you if you're ever going to the Netherlands to find a girl. Here, I'm about slightly above average length for a girl. Apparantly, people from the Netherlands are the tallest people in the world. This is probably because we live below sea level so we need to keep our heads above water all the time... [:$]
-
RE: Rss .. Fixed?
Well, it seems to work for me. Some offtopic discussion about me is now the top topic. Glad to know I'm number one... [6]
-
RE: Rss .. Fixed?
Darn. I should not have posted that. Now my topic is on the second place... [:S]
Btw. It would be nice if those RSS feeds would also bring me to that
last post. Especially useful for those topics that span multiple pages.
And perhaps you should offer the RSS feeds in two flavours. One sorted
by date of original post, which brings you to the first post. And one
sorted by date of last reply, which brings you to the last reply... -
RE: Rss .. Fixed?
I have to seriously disappoint you. I just noticed that this new RSS
feed, which you apparantly use for this forum, is messing things up a
bit in my FireFox/Sage environment. When I click on the feed, all posts
listed are in bold font, suggesting that these are new items.
Unfortunately, they are not but some topics might still be new.
Another problem is when I click on one of those links, I go to the page
but apparantly I'm not logged in. However, if I go to the RSS feed of
another forum and click there on a link, I am logged in again. (And no,
I don't have to log in again.) Apparantly those links are telling the
system that I am not logged in. But I am logged in! Weird. -
RE: Idea for new section
Actually, seals don't make that much sounds to begin with. Young seals
make some crying sounds when abandoned and hungry but most adults are
silent. I think you're confused with sealions again...
You do know the difference between sealions and seals, do you? A
sealion can stand on his front flippers and even use them to manipulate
objects. They can also bend theit back flippers below their body to sit
on them. Seals have shorter front flippers and their back flippers are
a bit stiff and directed to the back. They can't do much with them,
except in the water. In the water, seals are better swimmers than
sealions because their flippers are more streamlined and more stable.
Seals have a better stamina too.
Another difference is the amount of fat layers that they have. Sealions
tend to have less fat layers than seals. Not suprising, since sealions
live in more tropical and warmer areas while seals are found in the
most coldest places in this world. Which is why the flippers of seals
are also smaller because smaller extremities help to keep body heat
inside.
And if a seal does make a sound, it's more like a bark of a small dog
with the flu than the sound of a sealion. Or a growl if you're in their
way... And did I say already that they have a very mean bite? If a seal
bites you, you'll have to get a tetanus-shot because the bite will be
infectious. Seals are carnivores and wild seals can have pieces of
rotten fish between their teeth, which causes their bites to be
slightly poisonous... -
RE: The redneck knows about us...
<font size="3">I like his reply. He has an advertisement to a book at the bottom for a book called "</font><font color="#800000" face="Arial" size="3"> Oracle10g Grid Computing with RAC</font><font size="3">" and of course this book costs $69.95 and they hope you buy it. The most expensive toilet paper if you ask me but okay...
And did he address the valid points posted on this site? I'm not sure but I bet he would be a darned good politician. I see his words but they don't have any meaning. I'm not even sure if he agrees or disagrees with the IHOC...
</font> -
Required reading for everyone!
This is required reading for you all: "
If some Software Developers built houses?" -
RE: The redneck knows about us...
I'm not sure but I think many small companies probably won't purchase a
webserver AND a database server just to host their own small website.
If you're a small company with 5 employee who are all in the business
of selling bread, cakes and cookies from the counter then it's a bit
expensive to buy two machines just so people can order cake over the
Internet at your place. All you'd need is just a simple website where
you can maintain a list of articles that can be ordered, a nice front
page for your shop and perhaps some minor additional things. Most
likely, that webserver/database server will probably also be used by
one of the employees to receive the emails with customer orders and
additional communications.
Oracle is perhaps very good for the huge companies. SQL Server is more
in use with middle-sized and smaller companies. (And the smallest ones
probably use MS-Access instead...)
So yes, I do think many companies will have webserver and database
server on the same system just because it's more cost-effective. Too
bad that it's also a big risk in that case. It is quite easy to assume
that a company will just buy more and more hardware if they need it but
I don't think those small businesses who aren't deep into the IT stuff
won't be happy when they have to buy new hardware every year. Would not
suprise me if many of those companies use hardware that's 5 to 10 years
old. And basically, they just can't afford to upgrade simply because IT
is not their business so whatever upgrade they buy, they probably have
no use for all the additional features.
Or as my dad likes to say: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." -
RE: Do you have lots of pictures of yourself?
My parents have lots of those small transparent slides stored in several dozens of large boxes and I am on about one-third of those. My parents also have this big projector so we can all see them when we're bored which fortunately almost never happens. My dad is planning to scan them all in his computer but fortunately he still hasn't found any time for that either. I'm not that fond of pictures of me because I always tend to have a funny look, or an angry look, or i've spilled something over my clothing or whatever. So I'm happy about the way those pictures are stored right now. [:)]