Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle is a bigger version of MS Access?

Re: Oracle is a bigger version of MS Access?

From: <ctcgag_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 04 Oct 2003 19:31:16 GMT
Message-ID: <20031004153116.686$kZ@newsreader.com>


vslabs_at_onwe.co.za (Billy Verreynne) wrote:
> 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.

Certainly there are cheaper things than Oracle to only serve as a bit bucket. I wonder if his notion of bit bucket includes things like ACID.
> 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.

That is just insane. If Oracle Workflow were a separate company from Oracle Database, would he still object? My core requirement from WalMart is to sell me garden shovels. Therefore, I won't buy shoes from them, even if they have the best value on shoes. (What the heck is Oracle's Telnet, anyway?)

> I feel that if we go down the route using ORACLE non-core
> functionality, we will painting ourselves in a corner.

If you do anything at all, you will be painting yourself into 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.

Well, then actually look at whether Oracle supports it or not. Why just assume it doesn't support it without checking it out?

> Also, will
> support for this feature continue now or in the future.

When the hell else would something continue other than in the future? My big worry with Oracle is not that they'll stop supporting the features, but rather that they'll make me upgrade every few months in order to keep support. But upgrades of Java JRE and SDKs are not unknown, and not painless.

> This could be
> restrictive.

Where as locking to Java is not restrictive?

Xho

-- 
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service              New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
Received on Sat Oct 04 2003 - 14:31:16 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US