Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Abbot Cooper <cooper_NoSpam_ab_at_mediaone.net> wrote in message news:7hbuub$924

> Of course we all know the reason for this is that MS software makes the
> former more efficient and the latter mostly irrelevant. I am not saying that
> MS is perfect, but if you were a sysadmin would you be wild about a tool
> which would basically put you out of a job? Of course that is natural and a
> human reaction... but where are all of the people who made a living from
> horses and buggies who adamantly opposed the motor car? Eventually they had
> to face the new reality.

If only this was true...

The ONLY thing I see is an attempt by MS to discredit people who know this industry inside out and replace them with their own "mafia" of incompetents: read the MCSE mob. That is not getting rid of the sysadmins or the horse and buggie drivers, fella. Just marketing hype and empire building.

>
> Instead of fighting MS with a battle of words, the Oracle and Unix world
> would be better off to advance their systems as rapidly as possible to take
> as much labor as possible out of the development process. That is how
> technology advances -- remove labor wherever and whenever possible.

Sure. Not replace it with "re-badged" labor. Or else why is it that MS themselves recommend NT administrators for large server sites?

> Why is
> it that COBOL and Fortran are such minor languages now?
>

Only in the PC world. Where they were never significant anyway... There is NOT a SINGLE major "mainframe-gone-to-UNIX" commercial site in Australia that is not using COBOL. If not in direct code development, surely in the packages written to use COBOL generators. How about this simple FACT, buddy?

BTW, try to tell an engineer or scientific lab that FORTRAN is minor. You'll get a laugh.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au
http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm Received on Thu May 13 1999 - 05:58:50 CDT