Bottom Line: We now have a choice of Databases, platforms etc. And a lot of
us have jobs that pay our bills.
Note - If you live in either world and think that your learning process has
stopped or refuse to keep out, you will go the way of Btrieve, DEC, Data
Gen'l and a host of others in this industry that missed the boat. Motto: "Be
Prepared"
Jacob Love wrote in message <6ruorf$lpb_at_srvr1.engin.umich.edu>...
>In article <01bdcfe3$85396960$0c17b3d1_at_lhodgkiss>,
>bjohnsto_usa_net <bjohnsto_usa_net_at_dejanews.com> wrote:
>>Oracle forces you to do more work up front thinking about how big your
>>tables are going to get. SQL server lets you defer these kind of
>>decisions. Oracle seems to be optimised to be more labor intensive.
>
>I don't think we disagree here, but I think you've chosen an
>unfortunate turn of phrase. Oracle can be quite labor intensive, but
>it's not because it's been "optimised" to be that way, it's because
>Oracle has always presumed that over the vast number of platforms and
>sizes of installations that they support, it would be more useful for
>DBAs to be able to control more aspects of database administration and
>leave less up to various forms of optimization.
>
>But the key here is a little knowledge. By understanding your data (by
>which I mean knowing what is roughly going on in the database one is
>purporting to manage), it is possible to set up a wide variety of
>defaults in Oracle that will allow your developers to be just as sloppy
>as they would be in MS SQL-Server. The DBA can then take the road of
>fixing problems as they arise. Personally, I think it's a bit better
>to train developers so that they have some chance of creating the
>applications right to begin with, but in this "real world" of ours,
>that can be a tall order.
>
>>SQL
>>server is optimised to let you be sloppy, at the cost of some loss of
>>control, and efficiency. There are some mechanisms to help you reserve
>>space for tables, but you have to go out of your way and they seem less
>>natural.
>>
>>The bundled Microsoft front end tools stand out as so far above the
>>competition that the comparison is literally a joke.
>
>I've heard that Microsoft is doing a good job with these tools, but I
>have no direct experience. The Oracle management tools have always been
>more command-line oriented, but we've never had much trouble
>accomplishing what we need to do. And since Oracle tends to be used in
>places with large operations, many DBAs prefer to purchase high quality
>management tools from third parties.
>
>>Overall cycles are cheaper than programmers so Microsoft is on a good
>>thing.
>
>This may be one place where MS oriented IT staff and the rest of the
>world disagree. One of my fundamental complaints with MS software is
>that it seems to have the attitude that brute force memory and code
>bloat is better than doing things right to begin with. I can't agree
>that this is a "good thing."
>
>>Except that I have such poor experience with Microsoft support I would
>>consider their product very seriously. Since they are quite happy to
>>ignore bugs in their products which are impacting a customer for and
number
>>of years and releases I would avoid them for crucial systems. They have
>>such an enormous customer base they can't keep them all happy.
>
>My own experience with MS support is even worse. While there are
>complaints about Oracle support as well, I must say that my experiences
>with Oracle support over about 15 years have by and large been very
>good. They have gone through some rough periods, but in general, they
>have solved my problems responsibly and within a reasonable time
>frame.
>
>>None of the major databases fully support ANSI SQL92 fully. Even if they
>>did, the standard has enough missing features that people would
>>legitimately want to use proprietory extensions anyway. All pretty sad
>>really.
>
>Oracle does meet more requirements for the relational model than most
>competitors (although it is deficient in some peculiar areas). I am
>always perplexed by the lack of a CREATE DOMAIN in the DDL. To the best
>of my knowledge, Interbase remains the only product which supports
>domains, and for better or worse that product does not seem to be
>moving out of its niche. Someone told me that DB2 now has it, but I
>don't know if that's true. Oracle supports domains in its Designer
>2000 package, but in terms of Oracle's own database, this is essentially
>a kludge.
>
>All the talk about SQL-Server 7 seems to be assuming that Oracle will
>be sitting on its hands and not improving its core product. While this
>is not an impossible outcome, I think it is pretty unlikely. And for
>political reasons, Microsoft is unlikely to attempt to compete with
>Oracle in the area of embedding a Java virtual machine in its product.
>So if cross-platform computing is a concern, Oracle is likely to
>continue to be an important product; if NT conquers the universe, I
>suppose its all moot.
>
>
>--
>-----------------------
>Jack F. Love
>Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
>
Received on Thu Aug 27 1998 - 00:00:00 CDT
