Re: SQL-SERVER vs. Oracle

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:59:07 -0600, "Al Manint" <al_manint_at_nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

>MORE OPEN!?!??
>
>You have to through the 9 gates of hell before you can get to Oracle data.

Er, which gates? Bill's?

Of course: M$ wouldn't be interested AT ALL in making access to ORACLE easy, would they now?

Could that be why ODBC access to ORACLE until very recently had to go through three "conversion" layers, including the "Jet" engine, before it got to ORACLE? As opposed to the fast path access it has to SQL Server?

Nah! That could never be, could it? M$ would NEVER do a thing like that, would they? Just like they would never break the ORACLE code EVERYTIME they release a SP for NT...

>And M$ is leading the way in XML - they STARTED THE STANDARDS BODY - and
>Oracles XML implementation is far buggier.

You mean in their traditional fashion, they are leveraging their domination of the desktop environment to impose their implementation of XML. That is entirely different wording, isn't it? And it still aknowledges their "leadership"...

:-)

>
>SQL Server 7 is very stable. Ours with constant hitting has been up for 6
>months. And that is when we turned it on. I've rebooted my Oracle server
>twice in that time frame. I don't say that is unrealistic - just stating.

's fine. I'm stating that a site I used to work at until recently had ORACLE databases running without a hickup for well over a year. And their NT LAN servers have to be re-booted twice a day. And that is WITHOUT SQL Server. Just stating, too...

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Tue Jan 25 2000 - 03:54:18 CST