Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Oracle, IBM fight of whose DB is more manageable

RE: Oracle, IBM fight of whose DB is more manageable

From: Boivin, Patrice J <BoivinP_at_mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 03:50:00 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.005A3F66.20030528035000@fatcity.com>


Spoken like a true economist.

So we end up with half-baked programs that don't meet the minimum requirements. Better to choose what to do, and do it well, than do everything badly, don't you think?

Anyway this is falling into OT now.

Besides, it's only opinion, since none of the "soft" sciences are really science.

: )

Pat.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 5:50 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L

Patrice writes
> When I took sociology they decried the use of what they
> called "policy science", where someone has an objective but
> wants to find the best way to get there. (e.g. "we want the
> best education system at a budget reduced by 15 percent."
> Then they turn around an talk about "improving" the education
> system, or medicare, or... you name it.) They do this a lot
> in public policy. They rarely ask: "What level of funding
> is ideal for delivery of the following standards of services?"

I, at the risk of seeming heretical - but hey I am an economics grad and was an accountant so I'm comfortable with that - find this unhelpful. The objective 'I have the following resources available to me - how can I best use them?' sounds correct to me. Your alternative question ' How many resources do I need to deliver the outcome x - changing how I provide x is not an option' sounds like a recipe for waste and inefficiency. Consider that Connor's excellent choose_a_hit_ratio script essentially asks 'what resources do I need for the following outcome?' and then consumes them.

> I still haven't seen an honest comparison of SQL Server vs.
> Oracle vs. DB2 vs. Informix vs. SyBase vs. MySQL that I can trust.

Here's mine of Oracle vs SQL Server. How honest it is you can judge yourself.

"Both will do most jobs, with Oracle excelling in the high-end, highly available marketplace. MSSQL costs far less, both in purchase and TCO and excels in the 2-4 processor predictable corporate environment without a HA requirement."

Cheers

Niall

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Niall Litchfield
  INET: niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Boivin, Patrice J
  INET: BoivinP_at_mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Received on Wed May 28 2003 - 06:50:00 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US