Re: Does ORACLE has any stupid restrictions like MS-SQL

> And what class will that be? MS-SQL is not *that* bad.

Unless of course you want to use it for multi-user transactions and don't mind page level locking.

> And it's easier to administrate than Oracle

So's Access and Paradox but we purchase SQL RDBMS products for scalability, robustness, transaction throughput, and other criterion. Good DBAs can be purchased for a price. If the software can't do the job it hardly matters how hard it is to administer.

> Best of all is the client tools - Oracle's strength was never client
> tools. SQL*Plus is as useless for interactive work and development as
> EDLIN for Windows-NT. SQL-Workbook is also not much of an improvement.

Excuse me but apparently you have not heard of Designer/2000, Developer/2000, Discover/2000, PowerObjects, and a host of others. For example, I am currently front-ending an Oracle application with Netscape's Browser using nothing but ODBC and ASPs.

> But then you will quite likely say that good tools does not imply a
> good database engine. Also true. But why on earth we can't have the
> best from both worlds is beyond me.

See any Dilbert cartoon. That is the life we live. <G>

> It took me 10 minutes to write a multi-threaded 32bit ISQL client for
> Oracle using Delphi II. Don't tell me that the programmers at Oracle is
> that bad that they can't even design & develop a proper front-end tool
> for Oracle.

As I said above, haven't you heard of PowerObjects? Which in no way is meant to take away from Delphi. Delphi is a gem of a tool. And Delphi 3.0 is even better as you will soon see.

> The latest torrent of Windows '95 & NT tools from Oracle lacks a
> single UI like Microsoft's Enterprise Manager for SQL-Server. It tells
> me that all they're doing is firefighting with no real plan to provide
> a single comprehensive tool for Oracle DBAs. Probably one of the
> reasons why Platinum is such a favourite amongst Oracle DBAs.

When you are supporting 92+ platforms and operating systems it is hard to build tools for them all. I would rather go to a third-party for a tools (for example I use SQL Studio) than be limited to the quirky, less than robust, and definitely not very scalable Windows NT.

> IMO both SQL-Server and Oracle address specific (and sometimes
> overlapping) market segments. Different classes? - maybe, but does not
> make one product always better than the next.

Depends on what you want. If you are using a SQL RDBMS and want robustness, scalability, and portability you choose Oracle or Informix. SQL Server isn't even a consideration. And where will SQL Server be later this year when Oracle starts offering ObjectSQL and object extensions? I think you will see SQL Server slip to a minor SQL database or a more robust version of Access unless Microsoft purchases Informix.

Daniel A. Morgan Received on Wed Apr 02 1997 - 00:00:00 CST