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: Al Manint <al_manint_at_nospam.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 12:29:39 -0600
Message-ID: <5Ylj4.52823$475.1275623@news4.giganews.com>


 WRONG! I am using the OLEDB provider by ORACLE - and configuring their net config stuff and then getting TNS working and praying the servers can talk to each other. ALL oracle stuff with NO M$ (other than OLEDB - and everyone uses that layer - even M$ so it is "neutral")

Nuno Souto <nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam> wrote in message news:388d6bbf.5465266_at_news-server...
> 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 - 12:29:39 CST

Original text of this message

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