Re: Newbie's Oracle 9i impression: it sucks

Oracle is losing market share for one reason and one reason alone - ridiculous licensing costs.

I didn't read the beginnings of this thread but to compare Oracle with SQL Server and DBS2 is like comparing a Ferrari Testarosa to a Chevy Cavalier. The Ferrari is clearly the better car, but is it's cost justified?

I've worked with all three. Oracle is clearly the better product, but IMHO the cost is not justified and our shop has begun switching to the other alternatives - DB2 for mission critical and MS SQL for all others.

--
Chuck Hamilton
To reply remove "NOSPAM" from the address

"SQLJoe" <sqljoe_at_aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020521141906.02455.00000098_at_mb-mu.aol.com...


> Nuno, I thought you "officially" declared this thread to be over, so why

are


> you continuing to respond? No matter.

>

> You assume too much about me. I do NOT believe MS SQL is a superior

product. I


> just don't see as being an inferior product to Oracle. In fact, I am

learning


> DB2 right now.

>

> You Oracle folks should learn some humility about your own RDBMS. It is

not as


> GREAT as you claim. And it is CLEAR to me why Oracle is losing

marketshare. Its


> technology might be sophisticated, but it is VERY inelegant to say the

least.


>

> Jinsoo

> MCDBA, MCSD, MCSE+I

>

>

> >No he did not.

> >

> >You will NEVER get a MSSQL boffin to admit or "understand" a limitation

> >of "their" product.  Until such limitation is taken away, at which time

> >it will be "the first product without that limitation" by definition.

> >

> >It's a well known fact, seen many times in the past.

> >

> >Rest assured, he understood PERFECTLY well what you said.  Just the usual

> >deranged semantics on the way back and one of the many reasons why it's

> >not worth chasing it up.

>

>