Re: Oracle versus Sqlserver

nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam (Nuno Souto) wrote in message news:<3c46dcb4.3399390_at_news-vip.optusnet.com.au>...
> Steffen Ramlow doodled thusly:
>
> >LOL... r u talking about mss 4.21?
>
> i think he meant the latest whitest and brightest from M$. it still
> suffers from most RDBMS limitations that plagued 4.21. But of course
> some of us will believe anything M$ (or ORACLE) tells us...
>
> >> Footnote:
> >> Oracle is the first commercial Sql database and is 25 years old in 2002,
> >> ie. it has been around since 1977.
>
> not exactly.
>
> First, Oracle was NOT a commercial product in 1977. more like
> 1979/80.

Correct, see history in Nov/Dec Oracle magazine.

>
> Second, the first *commercial* (by this I mean you could buy it) SQL
> database was IBM's SQL/DS, not Oracle. In 1977. I know: I got the
> marketing stuff for it back then, when I was working with DOS/VSE and
> Cobol at Berger Paints.

There is a very interesting history of this at http://www.mcjones.org/System_R/SQL_Reunion_95/sqlr95.html

Looking deep into the system_r part, I note this about the "first install" in 1977:

• Begin Inclusion --------------------

Tom Price: I remember when we went to Pratt & Whitney the first time, we showed them all the system mods that they needed to put on their VM systems so that they could run it, and they already had system mods on all those same lines - local mods. It was a real mess.

• End Inclusion ----------------------

Somewhere later they admit the SQL standard was simply a half-baked set of docs IBM sent the standards committee. And now we all suffer with TSQL PL/SQL and other bastardizations of SQL because it was and is an incomplete tool for commercial programming.

Some of the early Oracle installations were pretty bad too. But it can (and has been) be argued that Oracle took the lead early.

I was first paid to work on a R database in 1981. I first saw Oracle in '83. It seemed pretty good, but not as good as what I had worked on. Later it came out that a lot of those V3 Oracle dbs were pretty bogus...

>
> Let's not forget that Ted Codd worked for IBM, not Oracle...
> I'm afraid if we go to the "firsts" bit, IBM has a better story. Not
> as consistent, but still better.
>

And his paper was in 1970... and SQL is still being futzed with to make all the stuff work as fast as that which he theoretically proved would work as fast relationally as the old hierarchical dbs. So whether he was right or wrong in theory, I'd say he was wrong in fact - that is, the commercial environment hasn't let his theories be properly developed. Now we have objects, whatever that is.

> >Larry Ellision the founder of Oracle
> >> has been championing the Sql language before there was any company around
> >> like Microsoft.
> >>
>
> that is indeed very true.

Well, that can be taken several ways... IBM had anti-trust convictions in 1956... :-)

More properly, in the '70s Larry was an engineer while Bill was a nerd. Not that there's anything wrong with that... There _is_ something wrong with how they've both acted since then.

>
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam
Received on Mon Jan 21 2002 - 17:54:38 CST