Roger that. Loudly and often. There's no small irony, too, in the "new" popularity of the thin-client or web client all tying back to a massive server infrastructure. We've come full circle again. It's fair to observe that today's web interfaced server systems are orders of magnitude more complex than most anything in the big iron days of mainframes and dumb terminals. But like Gall's Law says... It would have been better to add sophistication to the simpler system that worked than it has been to jump full-function into a system of near-biological complexity.
I will not be too horribly surprised if everybody who signs up for Obamacare, who doesn’t use healthcare for 2 years to save money, finds themselves completely bumped out of the system except for premiums. It’s too easy for complex transaction management systems implemented by non-schema db authors to default somewhere along the way to a LIFO/FIFO substitution in their branched listings.
Missed hits won’t ever show up until too late and records will be purged by those wanting to avoid nasty QC metrics.
Seems as though 90% of those claiming to be MIS specialists in charge of data repositories have never maintained, let alone normalized a db design, be it heirarchal, relational, or O-O, or even non-schema based. They might perform some data entry and front end GUI work, maybe even some client configuration, but vaporware eyes when it comes to complex computing.