Re: Why is Oracle unaffordable?
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 13:55:47 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTik0k12ETmyAXNZbsAgzgNLVCc8KkO3cMQh1ABLV_at_mail.gmail.com>
This discussion makes me think we have another convert to the NoSQL army: http://www.darkreading.com/blog/archives/2010/11/nosql_not_even.html?cid=nl_DR_daily_2010-11-08_text Dennis Williams
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Josh Collier <Josh.Collier_at_banfield.net>wrote:
> *Sql*server is "nice", but it doesn't have a lot of the fault tolerance
> and features of Oracle. *
>
>
>
>
>
> Can you expand on this idea? what fault tolerant features distinguish the
> two?
>
>
>
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Goulet, Richard
> *Sent:* Monday, November 08, 2010 6:51 AM
> *To:* RP Khare; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> *Subject:* RE: Why is Oracle unaffordable?
>
>
>
> Rohit,
>
>
>
> It has been used for that purpose too, matter of fact I don't think
> that any current db hasn't been tried as an embedded db at one time or the
> other. Some worked well in a particular application some didn't. Depends
> on your definition of "works well". Personally I would not use Oracle as an
> embedded DB.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, what Oracle costs has been debated for a number of
> years. Oracle XE is the latest response to that complaint and I think it is
> very well received in the market place, like Microsoft SQL*Server CE. As
> for having a "high paid" dba around to maintain Oracle, you might get away
> without having one, but you should have someone you can call on when Murphy
> strikes. Seems we had a similar situation with a SQL*Server install on a
> "retired" desktop the other day, expanded the transaction log to the point
> where the available space on the disk drive was zero. As the boss says,
> anyone can run setup.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dick Goulet
> Senior Oracle DBA
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* RP Khare [mailto:passionate_programmer_at_hotmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 08, 2010 9:20 AM
> *To:* Goulet, Richard; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> *Subject:* RE: Why is Oracle unaffordable?
>
> Dick,
>
>
> What about BerkelyDB? I think it is meant to be an embedded DB?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: RE: Why is Oracle unaffordable?
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:14:09 -0500
> From: Richard.Goulet_at_parexel.com
> To: passionate_programmer_at_hotmail.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
>
> Rohit,
>
>
>
> There is an old saying that "one gets what one pays for". That goes
> for database software as well. Sql*server is "nice", but it doesn't have a
> lot of the fault tolerance and features of Oracle. MySql is a toy that got
> promoted to something it was never designed for. BerkelyDB is similar, it
> was designed for small projects, but then got promoted to larger things.
> DB2 and Oracle are "similar" in robustness though feature sets are different
> as well as packaging. PostgreSql is somewhere between Oracle and
> SQL*Server, though a lot closer to Oracle.
>
>
>
> The bottom line is that a db is dependant on what you the developer
> want. If your looking for an imbedded DB, then I suggest you try a Google
> search, or possibly a visit to your local bookstore. I will agree that as
> an embedded db Oracle is a poor choice and there are a number of better ones
> out there, but many lack the recoverability, flexibility, and possibly ACID
> compliance of Oracle, but then maybe you don't need that. We have one
> application designed to reside on a laptop that uses the Java Based Apache
> Derby database which is open source. Fits nicely on a 8GB memory stick.
>
>
>
> Dick Goulet
> Senior Oracle DBA
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *RP Khare
> *Sent:* Monday, November 08, 2010 4:31 AM
> *To:* oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> *Subject:* Why is Oracle unaffordable?
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't want to initiate a religious war. I have been using MySQL since
> last two years in production environment. I used SQL Server Express and
> Oracle Express before. I have no complaints with either of the databases,
> except that Oracle is over expensive and the architecture is unnecessarily
> complicated. I want to know whether the complexity of the Oracle
> architecture and its ever demanding need for a dedicated DBA is worth paying
> or not. If you are an Oracle disciple, I don't want to hurt you and my
> views here are totally unbiased.
>
> I need an embedded database for a shrink-wrapped application. I looked
> around for the alternatives. I read about SQL Server CE, SQL Anywhere and
> BerkleyDB. I want to try BerkleyDB, but the prices are too high. You could
> afford and enterprise class IBM DB2 or Sybase Adaptive Server or SQL Server
> with a far lesser amount.
>
>
> Oracle is a good product but it is beyond the reach of customers other than
> big giants who pump in too much money just to keep those DBAs happy, who sit
> around that black dump command line screen. Why it can't be GUI and simple
> and affordable?
>
>
> ...............
> Rohit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Mon Nov 08 2010 - 13:55:47 CST