Re: Oracle comparison

Niall Litchfield wrote:
>
> "Generic Poster" <nospam_at_nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3D0EBB45.917C9100_at_nospam.com...
> > "Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
> > >

>> > Well, FWIW, we know quite a few folks who are running MySQL as a small


> > database, and they were quite happy with it.  Plus, it is getting very

> > popular as a web database......it's use is really exploding.  I think if

I really do not think that is a good comparison.

 In particular mySQL is (IIRC) not ACID compliant.

Explain?

 > > See above....actually, MySQL and PosgreSQL are becoming very popular
> > recommendations with web development consultants.....
>
> Are they popular with database consultants?

That doesn't really matter. They are becoming real popular as small web databases, and it looks like they are serving that role fine.
> > >
> > > Is it that they were free?
> >
> > This was very important......
> >
> > Was cost the prime factor here?
> >
> > Yes, also we liked the portability (we were told that code in MySQL
> > ported well to PostgreSQL), the integration with PHP Perl, Linux and
> > Apache, the speed, their rapid, ongoing, open-source development.....
>
> As a rule of thumb (cos I'm conservative) I am very suspicious of rapid
> development,

Well, in the open source field, it seems to be working well, and open source tends to be less buggy than commercial stuff anyway.

 I'm also *somewhat* suspicious of open source, In general you
> get what you pay for.

Dubious. Some nice TCO studies out now.

 In the case of Open Source that points at hidden costs
> (like support expertise etc).

TCO is showing this to often less than support costs with commercial stuff.
> > >
> > > Is it that you or your client won't be running Windows servers?
> >
> > He is not running anything. This is all for the host. We are
> > recommending Linux (or Unix) on the server and Apache as the webserver.
> > The project would be tied together with PHP and Perl scripting. We
> > recommended against a Windows server (basically a political matter on my
> > part but I could not see any advantage anyway). We recommended against
> > the Access, NT, IIS, ASP, VBScript. He had wanted to go in this
> > direction.
>
> Why did you not recommend the MS route.

Why the hell should we?

 It really sounds like you recommend
> against it because you have a bias against microsoft.

Yes, I do have a bias against them but I have justified it on the basis it seems that there is never a case when MS is the best solution out there. There is always some other solution, just as good or better. So there is just no need to recommend MS, and we don't feel bad recommending against them.

 I'd rather people
> recommended for good sound technical reasons.

I just did. AFAICT, MS solutions offer no advantages at all over competitors. There it is. Frankly, we often do have a lot of tech reasons to recommend against many MS solutions but I don't have time to go into that now. I'm a busy man......
> >
> > But you should really
> > > consider things like concurrency, scalability, reliability, platform/OS
> > > independence, multi-versioning, read-consistency, performance and so on.
> >
> > Yes but you are speaking another language. Can you point me to a
> > website where I can make sense of this? Not sure you want to explain it
> > all.....
>
> technet.oracle.com (free registration required) and then browse the
> documentation starting with the Oracle Concepts guide.

OK, thx. Received on Tue Jun 18 2002 - 18:09:31 CDT