Re: Oracle versus Sqlserver

Well lets get into the important stuff now. Larry has a far better barber than Bill. And his shoes are nicer too. <g>

Daniel Morgan

Joel Garry wrote:

> 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 Tue Jan 22 2002 - 06:55:18 CST