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: Oracle versus MS Sql Server

Re: Oracle versus MS Sql Server

From: Jason <foucault4_at_home.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 02:10:40 GMT
Message-ID: <AwKB7.154613$5A3.53926907@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>


> > Does your computer have a
> > keyboard? I think you should try unplugging it and use your mouse to
> > select each letter of the alphabet from a beautiful virtual keyboard on
> your
> > screen as you compose your response to this post
>
> This is complete nonsense.

Exactly my point, but obviously it's been wasted on you.

>
> As I read through your remarks (not just the above statements), many
> similarities to other opinions can be found. There once was a time, when
> mainframers thought that there would be no world except theirs. And there
> also where opinions, that a command line interface (like DOS 6) could
never
> be replaced by a GUI (Windows 3). One thing I learned from past
discussions
> is, that it is nealry impossible to convince such people. The best thing
to
> do is sit down and wait until their time is over.

I think you'll be six feet under for many years before the time of command line interfaces is "over". Besides, I didn't say GUI are never appropriate... they're great for end-users, but for a programmer they are often less efficient or impractical for the task at hand. This mentality that GUI=good and command=bad is insane. There are actually people in my company (IT professionals supposedly) who would suggest we get rid of our mainframe and move to intel-based servers because they have been brainwashed into believing that MS Windows is the best system there is. That's just beyond ridiculous. I guess I feel compelled to respond to this myth since I used to believe it myself... I thought GUI was better because I was ignorant about what is really important in systems management... things like stability, flexibility, maintainability... Sometimes flexibility and stability are more important than pretty pictures on a screen.

Furthermore, inherent in your argument is that GUI's make things obvious... that you don't have to learn anything, it's all just sitting there waiting for you to click on it. If that were the case, couldn't you be replaced by any warm body off the street?

>
> > You are perpetuating the idea that any
> > idiot can use a GUI to build a database...
>
> I do not request the impossible. I just want that the features, which a
> program is supposed to do, actually work. If there were no setup at all
> (just 100 pages of written documentation), if there were no Enterprise
> Manger at all (just a command line), if I were told "no, we don't think a
> setup and a GUI are important", much of what I said were completely
> irrelevant. But there is a SETUP, and there is a GUI, so I have to stand
up,
> if they are not working correctly.
>

To date, I don't think anyone else has had the difficulty you have in installing Oracle. Hmmm...

> My only motive for discussing here is trying to point on some areas, where
> Oracle might improve and might even learn from Microsoft. It is rather
> disappointing that if you come to a Oracle newgroup, and you dare to say
> something positive about Microsoft's products and something negative about
> Oracle's products, many people come up and slam you with their hammer.
That
> is the wrong attitude. And this attitude will fail in the long run.
>

Actually, many, many people here have given you very good advice and seriously tried to help you. In requesting help you've not simply criticized Oracle, you've expressed the opinion that there is some kind of god-given superiority to GUI tools that would have allowed you to install Oracle correctly. Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done by a novice.

> > How can Oracle make it's interface dummy-proof without removing
> > much of our ability to adapt it to our own needs?
>
> You probably are no Windows-user. But maybe you understand this anyway:
>
> Many many years ago installing a PC was a very difficult task. You had to
> plug adapter cards into the slots, and be carefull about IRQs and memory
> ranges. Then, many hardware professionals had an opinion that is similar
to
> yours "this can never be automated, this will always need hand-tuning". So
> where are we today? How many PCs are installed successfully by people, who
> do not even know what an IRQ is?

Your point is well taken, except that I would still say there's a big difference between installing a OS on an end-user PC and installing an enterprise database. A big part of what makes that install so easy today is that the installer makes a lot of choices for the user, choices that a systems professional would want to make manually. Perhaps for your development purposes Personal Oracle would be more appropriate?

>
> I do know that I cannot convice you. But you probably also know, that you
> won't be able to convince me.

I don't want to convince you, I just want you to know that there are a LOT of people who think you are wrong. I think I've made my small contribution to that end. Received on Wed Oct 24 2001 - 21:10:40 CDT

Original text of this message

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