Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

From: Nuno Souto <nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 03:08:25 +1000
Message-ID: <7hs7en$d02$3@m2.c2.telstra-mm.net.au>


Stephen Harris <sweh_at_mpn.com> wrote in message news:7hrb20$opk$1_at_nebula.mpn.com...
>
> It really doesn't have anything to do with comp.databases.* does it? The
> only DBMS mentioned was _my_ comment about memory in a SQL server!
>

I'd say it has. VERY MUCH SO. I'll demonstrate now.

Given that:

  1. the lines of argumentation being used to support MS are for typical desktop situations (no databases)
  2. these lines of argumentation pretend to support a sw company that specialises in products for desktop, large numbers of boxes, pre-installed stuff,etc, when trying to compete in the database server market
  3. TCO, cost of upgrade and maintenance of desktops are being used to support the argument that MS can provide cost-effective use of database servers.

I'd say the case has been made VERY clearly that in terms of the SPECIFIC database market:

  1. either MS knows squat about it,
  2. or the people arguing here how important MS is gonna be in databases because it dominates the desktop are complete hype parrots and live in lalaland.

Simple to demonstrate how much MS-heads are empty-heads and completely ignorant of what the database market is really all about.

Case closed. See youse all in the next "great MS saga".

Doova. Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au
http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm Received on Tue May 18 1999 - 12:08:25 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US