Re: Tech Comparison of Oracle versus MS Sqlserver 2000

Norman Dunbar wrote:

> Hi Billy,
>
> I do enjoy your occasional rants :o)
>
> <begin myrant>
> The problem in business nowadays is that purchasing decisions are based
> on some bean counter deciding yes or no to any requests.
> Alternatively, the business chooses Microsoft because that's what
> everyone else is doing.
>
> Sad but true, the benefits of one over the other are of no interest to
> bean counters, it's the bottom line that counts. And who tells them what
> the TCO is - the marketing bods, so whoever gets in with the lowest TCO,
> usually gets the contract. And then, when we technical bods have to sort
> out the mess/problems/inconsistancies/etc the TCO is never anywhere near
> what was quoted, and the company has to put up with it anyway because it
> would be too costly to change now .....
> <end myrant>
>
> Cheers,
> Norm.
>
> -------------------------------------
> Norman Dunbar
> Database/Unix administrator
> Lynx Financial Systems Ltd.
> mailto:Norman.Dunbar_at_LFS.co.uk
> Tel: 0113 289 6265
> Fax: 0113 289 3146
> URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com
> -------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Billy Verreynne [mailto:vslabs_at_onwe.co.za]
> Posted At: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:44 PM
> Posted To: server
> Conversation: Tech Comparison of Oracle versus MS Sqlserver 2000
> Subject: 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.
>
> <SNIP>

True. But IT professionals define the terms of the comparison. For example I could go into a meeting this afternoon, meet with a CFO and state the following:

"We are heavily leaning toward SQL Server due to the lower licensing cost but we are concerned about the fact that it only runs on the Windows operating system and we anticipate having about 31/2 days of downtime per year during which our customers would be unable to access our web site to make purchases or pay for their orders. Since our company does about $150,000 per day in business over our web site the cost of that downtime would be at least $525,000. And then, of course,there is the increased risk of the server being hacked. What do you think we should do?"

And you will find most CFO's more than capable of covering their own exposed posteriors.

There are things more important to bean counters than simple licensing costs. One of them is not being held accountable for the business being temporarily out of business. If you transfer the risk to them they will CYA just like everybody else.

Daniel Morgan Received on Fri Jan 17 2003 - 10:36:40 CST