I could add more, such as lots of high availability options and greater
stability on single server setups, VLDB like MS will never be able to
provide, an ever growing list of supported hardware/OS (how can anyone
run a 24x7 shop on an OS that has to be rebooted every week?) and (what
I like the most) I sleep better than the MS SQL DBAs I know.
AcCeSsDeNiEd wrote:
> The diff is we have drivers & connectivity to an Oracle db via Unix/Linux and M$ machines.
> You have unrestricted access to the DB via almost any Os.
> Sure you could use the old Sybase driver on Linux to connect to MS SQL, but that only is
> reliable on SQL 6.5.
> And sure you can get an ODBC bridge but that's expensive and gonna slow you down.
>
> I was in a dilemma choosing btw the 2 Dbs once.
> The above the main reason that made me choose Oracle.
> Besides that, anything that runs on M$ is never reliable and you can expect more downtime
> as compared to a Unix/Linux machine. I can fire up Oracle on Linux, but I can't do the same for MS
> SQL.
>
> I hate limitations.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:31:57 GMT, "los" <los123_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What is the difference, in a nutshell between these two RDBMS's . Are they
>>both for very large databases. Is Oracle more prevelant in the Corporate
>>environment?
>>
>
>
Received on Sat Feb 08 2003 - 07:20:00 CST
