• When I think of orgnizations that need DBA's I think of two types. 

    1. Orgs that use SQL with Apps they design and develop.

    2. The rest of them that use some App that runs on SQL.

    See,  most orgs are in 2.  Maybe the people that go to this fourm are more likely to be from type 1 orgs. What this means are DBA's are responciable for SQL to run as best it can with out any failures.  So RAID, backups, and general performance issues are at the top of the lists.  Then maybe they have to deal with problems that can only be fixed from a table level.  Finally they might need to modify or add to the DB's for reporting or other reasons.  But there not developers and not doing on a day to day basis what was mentioned by the editors post.

    Granted there are a lot of DBA's from type 2 orgs and then all those requirments start to makes sense. I aggree with a lot of people that Developers start to become DBA's in a lot of places because they don't want to pay DBA money.  To me the problem with this cirteria is  it only matters what type of org you work at.  Type 1 orgs pay DBA's to keep SQL running, backedup and patched.  They would be responcaible for SQL upgrades and security to some degree.  They may be wearing a dual hat admining the apps that use the SQL server or maybe not.  But a DBA from a type 2 org would most likely be more proficient using "advanced" features or tasks from a DBA from the type 1 org.  Maybe it's not fair that they share the same title and pay?   (actually type 1 might pay even more)  From enterprise enviornment most IT companies want DBA's and developers to be very diffrent.  So problems with the SQL past down situations are actually the developers problem.  Unless there also the devloper or admin for the app.  So being a DBA of whatever level is a cakewalk for those people.  They might have 10 or 1000 SQL servers to keep track of but if it's running slow it might fall on the developer to fix that.