Re: Minimalist ORACLE Installation

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 12:20:15 -0700
Message-ID: <1085253621.673029@yasure>

Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

>>The Standard Edition {ONE] has most, if not all, of the features that
>>typical PostgreSQL, MySQL, MS Access and SQL Server shops are looking for.
>>(This is NOT a challenge for a feature battle - just a stanement of what
>>the developers think they want, in my experience.)

>
> I think, most small, medium, and large corporation can do away with the
> above.
> Just as computer hardware, most user buy the most expensive one to get the
> most features but they are using it just for wordprocessing, reading email,
> and
> play games. Many, if not, most medium-big size corporation wasting their
> resources for something that they do not actually needs it.

If I understand your point I disagree. A database that is not secure and recoverable is a bad investment for any company.

>>There are dozens of reasons why MySQL and PostgreSQL have a smaller
>>footprint.  As of yet, the commercial products still have an edge in
>>reliability, scalability, and other capabilities.

>
> But how much more reliability, scalability, and other features they have as
> compared to PostgreSQL for good size shop or MySQL for small shop?
> For sometimes I was led to believe that more expensive is better, and was
> proven wrong.

Take either PostgreSQL or MySQL. Back it up. Then go in with a byte editor and corrupt a data file. After you have recovered your database to the point that you didn't lose a single transaction you may be better able to answer your own question.

Well actually you won't be able to but I expect you'll figure that out.

> But the beauty of opensource, it will not cost you anything to acquire an
> additional
> software.

I am a supporter of Open Source. But the fact that something IS/IS NOT open source is not a Boolean. There is far more complexity to the decision making process.

On example is Apache! It is one of the best, perhaps the best Web
> Apps
> Server around. It has many hooks too many things in which many commercial
> web server does not have. Apache becoming the pioner in many areas where
> other
> commercial tend to follow.

So because Apache is good therefore you feel free jumping to conclusions about other open source software?

> I think there are 2 camp of design method you mention above: modular and
> all-in-one.
> As most big software house, they tend to be so bloated and a bit rigid,
> where the open
> source tend to be modular, not by design, but by its nature where it is very
> collaborative development.

You are drawing global conclusions from local data.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Received on Sat May 22 2004 - 14:20:15 CDT