Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

"Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message news:<40640da1$0$3309$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net>...
> "Sybrand Bakker" <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message
> news:t5d660ld9cv7hpmg8r9b5k876qurkp8hvp_at_4ax.com...
> > At least Oracle *WORKS AND IS SCALABLE*
>
> The problem for Oracle is that at the very least DB2 and MSSQL also work and
> are scalable. I rather suspect that mySQL will join them very shortly.
>
> Don't get me wrong I do think that Oracle is a superior product, but for
> nearly all enterprises the competitor products are almost certainly
> perfectly acceptable.

You really think the MSSQL locking and consistency is acceptable for nearly all enterprises? Maybe I missed something, but it seems to foment lots of strange ideas about those subjects, and I don't mean just from the O point of view (in fact I think the "rdb way" is most "correct" and O is a bit oddball, but I've become convinced the "O way" is generally better for business apps - don't know much about DB2 besides what I see here).

I do think that ubiquity of MSSQL in itself increases such acceptability, but I'm not convinced this is a good thing. I've certainly seen the users tendency towards not understanding backups scale from losing word docs to losing payroll databases, for just one example.

I'm halfway in agreement about MSSQL scalability. It appears to me one must go fairly large to start seeing an O advantage - I'll arbitrarily pull 3 digits of contemperaneous users out of my hat, just to be trollish.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.batemania.com/animation/browse.html