Re: Oracle is a bigger version of MS Access?

"Billy Verreynne" <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za> wrote in message news:1a75df45.0310012116.3c14546d_at_posting.google.com...
> How would you comment on the following? This is a snippet from an
> e-mail I received some hours ago about a newly proposed architecture
> which mainly focus on Java:
> ---
> In this, we have viewed ORACLE as just a 'BIG' MS Access or 'BIT
> BUCKET' with better management and processing tools. I don't believe
> this view has changed, and I do not foresee it changing.
>
> I do not believe we should use Oracle's Workflow, SNMP, Telnet, Web
> Services, etc tools because it moves away from our core requirements
> from Oracle.
>
> I feel that if we go down the route using ORACLE non-core
> functionality, we will painting ourselves in a corner. Our
> functionality will then become dependant on whether ORACLE supports it
> or not, and if it does, to what level does it support it. Also, will
> support for this feature continue now or in the future. This could be
> restrictive.
> --
>
> Comments will be appreciated.

I'm confused. Is the person who wrote this saying Oracle is an RDBMS provider therefore we won't buy anything other than RDBMS from this vendor? Would they say SUN is a hardware vendor therefore we won't use Java. The objections seem to be to services largely provided by 9iAS rather than the DBMS. It would seem to me that the decision to use 9iAS is to be taken on the basis of the Application server functionality required by the app (and price,scalability,etc etc) not by what the vendor is know for per-se. trying to guess what Oracle or BEA or IBM will support in 5 years time is a mugs game.

If on the other hand they are saying I don't want to use the Oracle *database* as an app server then that is probably a justifiable position.

-- 
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK