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

sqljoe_at_aol.com (SQLJoe) wrote in message news:<20020521140441.02455.00000090_at_mb-mu.aol.com>...
> 1)Oracle is by far the most expensive database both in license AND support.

Enterprise solutions are always expensive. DB2 is also not a cheap one. The price of Oracle is certainly problem in low-end database business, but in high-end no one really care (no one sane) about few houndred thousands bucks spend on Oracle. Everyday I can see much bigger bucks flying around, spend on ERP, CRM, HW, support and many others.

> 2)Oracle has a history of ripping off their customers as much as they can. The
> most recent example is their attempt to force its customers pay more for the
> extra CPU in their servers. They were able to do this because, for a while,
> they were the dominant player in the Enterprise level RDBMS market.

Welcome in the beautiful world of software vendors and in the capitalism. To rip your customers as much as you can is the meaning of business. And no one is better in this field than Microsoft. :-))

> 3)Both DB2 and MS SQL can point to several independent benchmarks which > > show they are just as good, if not better, than Oracle in performance.

Yeah, if we would use a 8-node server cluster 32 CPUs each, then MS SQL2000 is in one artificial benchmark better than Oracle on one 8 CPUs server. :-)

> 4)Oracle's main OS platform, SUN Solaris, is in big trouble. Many industry
> insiders believe its glory days are over because of stronger and cheaper
> compeition from HPux, AIX, and Linux.

No one really care. Solaris is maybe development platform, but Oracle can ran with no problems on all mentioned platforms. Solaris is used for developing, because of its market share. I think that if for example HP-UX prevail, then swtiching development on Solaris will not be a big trouble. We have seen change like this about four years ago.  

> 5)Microsoft's Windows is gaining marketshare in the server OS market. IDC has
> confirmed it will have 50% share by mid-2002 and will continue to gain
> marketshare in the foreseeable future. As I stated, Oracle is WEAK and
> BUGGY in W2K.

Do you think that MS Windows would has in 2005 (or maybe we should wait till 2010) features like real multitasking, stability or memory management in level like we can see on "obsolete" Unixes from seventies ?
Are you sure that unstability in you Windows environment wasn't caused by Windows itself ? My home Windows 2000 are unstable just because I was so dare to install TEAC W-540 CD-writer and even more unstable because of upgrading IE to 6.0.
Many computer journalist said how obsolete is Unix comparing to new fresh Windows NT/2000/XP* (fill what you want). However from my point of view (as IT techie/manager in high-end environment) Windows still lacks the basic "must have" functionality that Unixes giving to you for decades.

> Before someone flames me, which is an inevitiability, let me state that both
> UNIX and Oracle will NOT go away anytime soon. But I believe their marketshare
> will continue to dimish. Certainly, there are currently no trend or signs that
> either Unix or Oracle is GAINING marketshare in their respective market.

The market is not undefinite and nowadays somehow shitty economic situation doesn't offer a great oportunities to sell advanced solutions to rich customers.

--
_________________________________________

Dusan Bolek, Ing.
Oracle team leader

Note: pagesflames_at_usa.net has been cancelled due to changes (maybe we
can call it an overture to bankruptcy) on that server. I'm still using
this email to prevent SPAM. Maybe one day I will change it and have a
proper mail even for news, but right now I can be reached by this
email.