Re: Oracle is a bigger version of MS Access?

Hans Forbrich <forbrich_at_yahoo.net> wrote

> The only possible argument against such religious drivel might be Chapter
> 1 of Kyte's expert one-on-one.

Good, call. I've just photostated the first few pages and will be handing it out at the next architecture meeting.

> But it's an uphill battle precisely because it's religious (pure belief
> without, or deliberately ignoring, any visible means of support).

Exactly. Which is why I'm trolling for comments and opinions, backed up personal experience, to also present at the next meeting.

One of the problems I face is the perception that I'm an Oracle fanatic saying that as much as possible must be done in the database. It's difficult to change this perception and show that it is a common and the best practise method - and nothing to do with Oracle "fanatacism".

So, how do you counter the opinion that Oracle should be a bit bucket without sounding like a fanatic?

--
Billy