Re: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

"Bill "shrek" Thater" <william.thater_at_carrier.utc.com> wrote in message news:<bn65ns$t357n$2_at_ID-211330.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
> > Your experience is purely anecdotal. Other people's experience may
> > well differ. But one thing is definite and that is that I can put
> > either SQL Server or Oracle on a single CPU Pentium machine and both
> > will run. But while SQL Server will only run on the Windows operating
> > system with Oracle an organization has the choice to avoid paying
> > hundreds of dollars for the operating system, they can choose Linux,
> > and also avoid all of the problems with the huge number of Windows
> > only virus, worm, and trojan attacks.
>
> the ability exists, however at this point in time most companies do not
> have the talent available to manage other than Windows servers unless

I have found that NT admins typically don't have the skills to effectively manage even Windows unless they are also capable of picking up Unix administration. The notion that you can skimp on admin talent by running Windows is simply a myth. You will still need someone with a clue managing the OS and the RDBMS. You will also need quality TSQL/PLSQL/SQL coders. Otherwise you'll just be feeding either engine trash and get trash in return.

Otherwise, you will likely get similar results out of both products by running them in "toy mode". Although msSQL might have a slight edge in terms of default settings (Oracle's are horrible).

> they are large enough to have Unix server farms. in that case they
> already would have Oracle installed on a unix platform. smaller
> companies would tend not to choose Oracle due to the lack of talent
> mentionsed as well as the adversity to adding a DBA to staff.
Received on Thu Oct 23 2003 - 23:20:44 CDT