Re: SQL-SERVER vs. Oracle

I wouldn't reply, both parties have their advocates, and of course I don't believe in Sqlserver, or any other microsux product that simply has been bought. Sqlserver and Sybase once where the same, same story with OS/2, before Microsoft decided to bail out. Anyway.. 'They have been accustomed to everything via the command line' You are not saying Oracle doesn't have a GUI interface, do you. That's simply not true. You may not like it but it does have one. However, as we all know those GUI gadgets usually have so many defaults, people don't know anymore what's really going on. Even if you do have a GUI interface, I would force novices to learn it the hard way. They should know what they are doing...

Hth,

--
Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
Mike Carter <mike_at_delriotech.com> wrote in message news:ur2i4.52631$905.1058077_at_news5.giganews.com...
> MS SQL Server is much easier to pick-up on and learn if you're a new DBA.
> Don't let its ease of use let you think that it can't compete well with
> Oracle. I have extensive experience in both of these technologies (SQL
> Server 6.5 / 7.0 and Oracle 8i), and I've had to learn them both on my
own.
> SQL Server 6.5 was extremely stable but lacked a little functionality that
> 7.0 has taken care of.
>
> As far as a database solution for Windows NT, I would definately give
> Microsoft the edge here. You can do everything you need to do to a
database
> from the SQL Server GUI tool (Enterprise Manager). Oracle's attempt at
> recreating this product for their database falls well short. Of course,
this
> doesn't really bother Oracle DBAs because they've become accustomed to
doing
> everything via the command line. Not only in the GUI useless (except to
> view objects and, on a limited scale, create/alter objects), but Oracle
> requires way too much digging around in the NT file system and registry.
No
> DBA should ever have to worry about registry entries, ever!!! MS-SQL
gives
> you the added advantage of running over plain old IP or named pipes
without
> the overhead of wrapping a Net8 over it as well.
>
> I don't mean to show a bias here, but the bottom line is, if you want a
> stable and easy to use solution running on NT, my vote is MS SQL Server
> 7.0....hands down.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Owen Southwood <owen_at_listers.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:948387115.9283.0.nnrp-08.c2de2f84_at_news.demon.co.uk...
> > Of course, I meant "SQL-Server" not just "SQL" !! sorry.
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Fri Jan 21 2000 - 14:34:06 CST