I guess you missed Tom Kyte from this top-hit-list

The new version is found here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hiOhVSO-EFcC&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

How many errors that I pointed out above are still in the new version of the book? Do the included report outputs still show the number of waits on the CPU (compare page 17 in the old version of the book with page 28 in the new version)” I, as well as a couple other people, brought that problem to the author’s attention roughly a year ago.

As much as I would like to visit Connecticut (and several other states), I have not had that opportunity yet. Sorry, I am an unrelated Charles Hooper.

Marcia
(the Unix web guru from Three Rivers)

That was not a typing mistake – I looked the word up before submitting the comment.

Actually, after typing the word I thought that it appeared to be a bit odd, so I performed a Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Acomplimentary

I thought to myself, “Well that’s odd – hasn’t Google ever heard of two separate angles of attack (that are nice to each other and) add up to become something that is exactly the right angle of attack?” Take a look at the last couple of definitions offered by Google:
“•Serving to complement or complete. Supplying mutual needs or offsetting mutual lacks”
“•Complementary medicine refers to alternative treatments that are used alongside (‘complementary to’) conventional medicine, especially as palliative care”

That’s almost what was intended. There was an old saying from grade school related to spelling: “i before e except after c,” therefore, I had no choice but to spell the word “complementary” as “complimentary”. Everything written here is true, except apparently about the “i before e” story.

By the way, nice catch.

Personally, I just want to know the correct (best for the situation) answer to a problem, why that answer is correct, and what conditions need to exist for the answer to not be correct. In order to reach that point I need to understand the steps involved in deciding what is the correct (best for the situation) answer. If someone just tells me “this is what you do, because I have done it 1,000 times over the last 25 years”, I am left wondering if nothing has changed in the last 25 years. If somone just tells me “this is what you do because I wrote it in three books”, I am left wondering if the author ever consulted any other sources, or if the author bothered to verify that the results are due to the proposed changes, or if the results are related to something entirely unrelated to what was changed. If someone just tells me “this is what you do because an OCM told me to do this”, I am left wondering if that person did not read the opening paragraph of this blog article. I don’t want someone to just tell me that something is right, I want (demand?) that person to show me how the person arrived at that answer. Jonathan Lewis is extremely skilled at showing the steps toward the “correct” answer, and also quite willing to show what might cause the “correct” answer to become the wrong answer. I am still trying to work toward that ability – it is not always easy to anticipate everything that could go wrong to cause the “best” solution to become the “worst” solution.

The search on the oaktable.net site is great for quickly locating information.

I think you are ranked #2 on Mr B’s hit list. Jonathan Lewis has got to be Mr B’s #1 true love :p

The Amazon book review was actually for a book written by Craig Shallahamer. There were a number items from that book which qualified as “Specific errors, omissions, and distractions” – that author might be able to address those issues in the fifth printing of the book. Those corrections should improve the three star rating. I am not sure why Mr. B. decided to comment on that review other than as a way of setting precedent so that when I posted an equally thorough review of his book he would be able to create a circular reference – “Charles Hooper, wide-spread misconduct”.

As you might be able to tell from the notes that I posted about the first 29 pages of Mr. B.’s book, the number of items that would have fallen under the heading of “Specific errors, omissions, and distractions” would have been significantly greater than was the case for Mr. Shallahamer’s book, if those problems remained in the second edition of the book, and there were roughly the same number of “Specific errors, omissions, and distractions” per page for the rest of the book [edit: the font size difference allowed Mr. Shallahamer's book to have twice as much content per page as Mr. B.'s book].

Waste of my time was one of the reasons why I cancelled the order. Mr. B’s DMCA antics were another reason. The order being 3 months late was another reason. And, the list might go on for a couple more items.

I’ve read your review of Mr B’s book on Amazon. Personally, I think you have given that book a bit too much credit ( 3 stars? You are too generous!), and probably wasted too much time reviewing that sort of crap.

He will forever be the I-have-100-years-of-experience-and-I-don’t-have-to-prove-what-I-say guy, and there will be tons of people buying into his marketing trick, and there’s nothing you ( or anybody) can do about it.

Cheers.