Re: Tech Comparison of Oracle versus MS Sqlserver 2000

Karen Abgarian wrote:

> Ok, is there anything GOOD about the Sql Server?
>
> The article is maybe all truth but looks biased.

Correct.

Feature to feature comparison is WORTHLESS. Period.

If it is not, then I will put it to that person that he is in search of a penis enlargement by wanting to have the kewlest rocking database.

Why do you have a database? To address business needs.

What are the business needs? Define.

What are the capabilities of the IT/IS side of the business ito support, Unix skills, database administration skills, database design skills? Define.

What is the IT/IS strategy of the business? Define.

What vendor support contracts are in place? What close relationships are there? Is the business happy with the IT/IS supplier they're in bed with? What about development and outsourcing? What about the existing support infrastructure? What about... you get the idea I trust.

Anyone that tells you that SQL-Server is crap because it implements page locking and not row level locking, or Oracle is crap because it is expensive and complex, is dribbling feces due to having his head stuck up his backside.

Databases are tools. You select the best tool for the job. AFTER you know _WHAT_ the friggen job entails. _WHAT_ the environment is for that job. Etc. Etc.

Buying a F1 racing car when you have Sunday morning granny doing the driving, a VW backyard mechanic doing the support, in order to make regular trips to the local shopping mall, is idiotic.

Buy a VW beetle to cart 50 tons worth of grain from farms to silo, is idiotic.

Anyone that selects a database because it is technically kewl, while disregarding the business needs and requirements, is.. wait for it.. yeah, you guess it.. IS A FRIGGEN IDIOT!

So is asking for comparisons between SQL-Server and Oracle.

My twisted and warped opinion. As always.

--
Billy