Backward Compatability
Backward Compatability is a very big technological driver. Especially for software companies like Oracle that have customers with a large installed base of users who rely on expensive functionality that they have purchased. When companies invest in software it is usually for very good business reasons and they expect that software to carry on doing at least what it did in the previous version as time progresses.
In 2006 I argued (www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com/ManageabilityManifesto.pdf) that Oracle Corp had removed some existing functionality from Standard Edition users of the database product by making certain features that had previously been available in a management pack for SE users (and the base product for that matter). I started a petition (that had very little effect, the relevant product manager said they preferred to hear direct from customers – presumably in sales meetings – and not from users and advocates of the product ) and generally made a bit of a fuss.
Four years later and the same team have committed a similar error again. If you visit http://www.oracle.com/oms/enterprisemanager11g/webcast-067871.html you can hear Charles Phillips and others talking about Oracle Enterprise Manager 11g. What’s frustrating for me is that some of what is described (for example the management packs for Oracle E-Business Suite described in BreakOut Session 1 @8:33 , but especially 10:14-12:44) exists in the 10g product, but will not install on and is not certified for 11g. I can’t speak to whether an upgraded installation will work correctly, but I’m not encouraged. It turns out that this subject was covered on Stephen Chan’s excellent blog at http://blogs.oracle.com/stevenChan/2010/06/oem_11g_amp_acmp_plans.html. It rather looks as if to get features that were working in 10g Enterprise Manager, you’ll have to wait for a future release of the management pack – and moreover that possibly this project has only just started.
So Charles Phillips goes around and listens to customers, then tells the product managers what to do. That seems to make sense.
I guess that means you have to get Charles Phillips attention. I hear a billboard might work.
So it means DBA 2.0 is trailing edge, DBA 1.0 is leading edge? Maybe that’s a good thing.
Is it really an error? Oracle is a business, shareholders always have precedence over technical issues. And even PR issues. Managers always like to think they can browbeat vendors into doing things, techies like to think they can convince vendor technical leads to do things right, but these things are like a krill trying to strangle Larry as he goes by in his boat – too small of an effect to even be comical.
joel garry
8 Jul 10 at 11:13 pm
Hi Joel,
Thanks for dropping by, and indeed for listening and contributing all these years. Of course Oracle (and others) should follow commercial rather than technical drivers of their business. It seems to me though that if you think it’s important enough to spend 10% of your time talking about how great a feature is and how it forms part of the strategic direction of the product (as was done in the apps to disk breakout session) its rather a shame that the feature exists in the previous release but not in the one that you are pushing. As it happens this will cause some significant issues for a client that has invested heavily in both e-business suite and SOA 11g where the 11g EM is really required for the latter, and 10g for the former.
Niall Litchfield
9 Jul 10 at 6:38 am