Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Kerry Scott <kerrysco_at_msn.com> wrote in message news:OIX0sX1m#GA.245_at_cpmsnbbsa03...
> It is a "disaster", he says. And yet, there are so many running it with
> plenty of users. I have heard this same argument for almost any software you
> care to mention. Experience tells me that "disastrous" software is often as
> not, the fault of a disastrous administrator.

One day people in this industry are gonna learn that saying "there are so many using <insert>" means absolutely nothing! Never believe the statements of a software manufacturer! No matter how big it is. Period.

I still well remember the wild statements put out by MS early in the life of SQL-Server, making it look like a "fait-accompli" that all other databases were crap. This sort of stuff was done by IBM early in the 60's and 70's, then many UNIX makers in the 80's (including ORACLE) and now we all have to suffer this idiocy again in the 90's. Will these guys never learn? Some of us have been around in this industry a bit longer than the latest MS re-invention of old software...

As for the "disastrous administrator", I'd be VERY surprised to learn that a bad administrator can stuff up a SQL-Server database. After all, MS INSISTS that this product can be run by morons (read: MS-certified morons).

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au
http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm Received on Tue May 11 1999 - 06:24:30 CDT