Thread: training as a means of advocacy?

.
===============================================
The content of this message may contain the private views and opinions of the sender and does not constitute a formal view and/or opinion of the company unless specifically stated.

The contents of this email and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information, and is intended only for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachments from your system.

Please refer to http://www.newmont.com/en/disclaimer for other language versions of this disclaimer. ================================================

Scott Paine wrote:
> But, if you want to attract the attention of a large segment of
> industry consisting of people [...] who do not have huge budgets,

There's the rub.  Why would anyone want to attract those people?  Sure,
we're all humanists and we like to help people, but training and
tutoring is extremely expensive, and the way you phrase it it doesn't
sound like a good value proposition.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Scott,

> I know, there's an argument to be made that such people do not need an
> enterprise system to handle their little databases with their cute
> little reports and entry forms and charts.  Even so, if it works for big

Actually, PostgreSQL doesn't even fill the need you have.  You are
migrating from Access.  Access provides a lot of tools to interface to
database engines; I'm talking about the ability to build forms, reports,
and other things of that nature.

PostgreSQL doesn't provide those things, as it is a database backend.  In
fact, you can use Postgres as a backend for your Access applications.  It
seems like what you want is a framework on which you can build
applications.

You can see if Dabo fills your needs:

http://dabodev.com/

Or, OpenOffice BASE is an Access workalike, and would likely fill your
needs.

Or, search Amazon for one of the PostgreSQL development books.

Basically, you have a choice: you can spend money on a book or travel to a
training class, or you can spend time and read the manuals to figure
things out.

Hope that helps!

Cheers,
-J

Hi Scott,

However, I am finding training is even more difficult to find for PostgreSQL.  My situation requires online courses or travel to a classroom for a short course; onsite training isn’t cost effective for one person.  Unless I want to go to Germany, all classes I can find assume the student already knows Linux and SQL and has experience with a similar program like Oracle, and is familiar with numerous acronyms.

We offer a "Implementing databases with PostgreSQL" course that requires no knowledge of SQL, acronyms, or Linux.  However, we haven't scheduled it on our public calendar for quite some time, since we haven't had many requests for the course (we schedule public courses based on our perceived demand).  However, based on your request I'll see if we can't get it on our calendar - though it probably won't be until the 2008 calendar year. :-(

We love to drive adoption of PostgreSQL whenever possible.... :-)

-- 
Chander Ganesan
The Open Technology Group
One Copley Parkway, Suite 210
Morrisville, NC  27560
Phone: 877-258-8987/919-463-0999
http://www.otg-nc.com

peter_e@gmx.net (Peter Eisentraut) writes:
> Scott Paine wrote:
>> But, if you want to attract the attention of a large segment of
>> industry consisting of people [...] who do not have huge budgets,
>
> There's the rub.  Why would anyone want to attract those people?  Sure,
> we're all humanists and we like to help people, but training and
> tutoring is extremely expensive, and the way you phrase it it doesn't
> sound like a good value proposition.

I had someone come by with a perhaps-relevant proposal that *would*
involve training and tutoring, but it would involve a concommittant
goal that those being trained would have, as specific responsibility,
the requirement to work to help the project.  The point would NOT be
merely to learn SQL...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="linuxfinances.info" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/advocacy.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #166.  "If the rebels manage to trick me, I
will make a  note of what they did  so that I do not  keep falling for
the same trick over and over again." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>

> PostgreSQL doesn't provide those things, as it is a database backend.  In
> fact, you can use Postgres as a backend for your Access applications.  It
> seems like what you want is a framework on which you can build
> applications.

He also might want to check out Once:Radix:
http://onceradix.com/fabrik/index.html

This is a nice step up from Access/Filemaker while still being intuitive and
easy to use.  And open souce!

Howerver, Scott, you've hit on the failure of the whole training industry to
advance to the new economy.  Training is still largely a boutique industry,
and has failed to advance meaningfully into cheaper, more accessable online
courses.  The problem you identify is quite real, but it's more widespread
and harder to solve than you probably think it is.

Maybe I should talk to OTG ...

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

Le Thursday 23 August 2007 21:29:53 Scott Paine, vous avez écrit :
> I'm a DB novice fleeing from MS Access to opensource, considering
> various options
[...]
> That may seem obvious, but what I see is that if a non-geek wants to
> escape the limits of Excel or the intense convolution of Access, there
> are few (if any) opensource options.

Did you see about kexi? I've never used it myself, but it seems like a good
candidate for what I understand are your needs.
  http://kexi-project.org/

Regards,
--
dim

On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:47:13PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Howerver, Scott, you've hit on the failure of the whole training industry to
> advance to the new economy.  Training is still largely a boutique industry,
> and has failed to advance meaningfully into cheaper, more accessable online
> courses.  The problem you identify is quite real, but it's more widespread
> and harder to solve than you probably think it is.

The latter point is important here.

To begin with, training is expensive to do, and very hard to do well.
Computer-based training is even harder to do well.  Most people are
not very good teachers (including many of the trainers who are out
there); and even more people who are already out working are _awful_
students.

Moreover, the success rates on self-administered training (which is
what CBT has to be) are lower than classroom-based training.  This is
because the classroom has an advantage: the students have to go at
the pace of the classroom.  Since the "pass" mark at the end of most
classroom-based courses is low enough, a test administered right at
the end of an intensive week-long course will almost always show
nearly everyone passing.  (Universities also do something similar, of
course, making sure that they get a nice brontosaurus-shaped curve at
the end of their courses.  Just ask people who have taught, for
instance, symbolic logic or mathematics, where the curves are often
U-shaped.)  But self-paced learning is different: unless the course
design is _very good_, it will almost certainly have higher failure
rates, because students aren't that good at the discipline necessary
to ensure they work all the problems needed, in the right order and
at the right pace.  For instance, a foundation skill needs to be
followed immediately by practice in its application; but if the
student takes two weeks between those units (because "something came
up at work"), then the student quickly finds it can't remember the
basic skills needed to continue with the work.  The trainee becomes
frustrated, and gives up.

There are ways around this, of course, but they're more expensive
than putting someone in a classroom for a week -- for the training
company.  The trainees, of course, have to pay travel and
accommodation, too; but that's a cost that's often accounted as
"travel" and not "training"; so the training budget doesn't have to
pay that additional expense in the case of going to a course in a
nearby city.  The training budget _does_ have to pay for the
additional expense in a remote-training, student-paced arrangement,
though, which means (paradoxically) that self-guided training, if it
is effective, is often more expensive per course than classroom
training.

Best,
A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
        --Roger Brinner