| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle vs SQl Server
You are exactly right: " they simply forced the customer to use it "
In article <92b3as$6f61v$2_at_ID-62141.news.dfncis.de>,
"Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote:
> That will definitely not be MS. They are now for many years trying to
defeat
> Oracle and they still didn't succeed.
> Also they uprooted several other products not because of the quality
of
> their own products, they simply forced the customer to use it (as you
> probably are aware in the DOS era OEM were forced by MS to give away
Windows
> with any new PC, at the expense of the OEM. As you are also probably
aware
> they uprooted Wordperfect in the Netherlands by almost giving away
Word)
> So one of the reasons MS will not defeat Oracle, is Oracle is simply
too
> rich: they will survive such an attack.
> The only option also for MS to defeat Oracle in the database field, is
to
> provide a port of Sqlserver running under Unix: anyone who knows
anything
> about the capabilities of NT and Win2K knows their scalability is too
> limited.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
>
> "Robin R Handler" <rrhandle_at_my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:92b1s2$vcv$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I think you are all missing something. I have no doubt MS's aim is
to
> > product a database as good as for better than Oracle. They uprooted
> > WordPerfect, Lotus, Netscape, . . . Who do you think will have the
> > database market in five years?
> >
> >
> > In article <922712$24s$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > sybrandb_at_my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <t494l2nsrgp32c_at_corp.supernews.com>,
> > > "Michael A." <banana_boat_x_at_x_1stconnect.com> wrote:
> > > > > Can anyone provide me some insight into the relative merits of
Oracle
> > > > > vs SQL 2000?
> > > >
> > > > I haven't used SQLServer all that much myself, but I know it's
usually not
> > > > mentioned in polite company in the firms for which I've done
work in
recent
> > > > years. Mostly things having to do with table corruption and
scalability.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, it's a Big Red Flag when I see a so-called
enterprise-
level DBMS
> > > > including, and even relying upon, a utility for recovering
corrupted
> > > > database tables. Why is it even needed?
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > If you mean Oracle by a 'so-called enterprise level DBMS' and you
would
> > > know anything about the transaction concept in relational
databases,
> > > you could have answered this question yourself. How do you expect
to
> > > recover from failure in Sqlserver if your last backup was several
days
> > > or more ago? You probably know the answer: you can't!
> > > If that's ok with you stick to sqlserver or other Microsoft
provided
> > > toys like Access which should never been used for enterprise level
> > > information systems.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
> > >
> > > All standard disclaimers apply
> > >
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Received on Tue Dec 26 2000 - 17:04:02 CST
 |
 |