Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

From: Daniel Morgan <>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:52:50 -0800
Message-ID: <1080589952.586356@yasure>

rkusenet wrote:

> "Daniel Morgan" <> wrote

>>And as now know Oracle wasn't at fault at all. Orbitz lost a control
>>file and their DBAs started applying Oracle and Solaris patches and
>>didn't contact Oracle, or for that matter Sun, support for hours. By
>>then Orbitz's employees had done irreparable damage.

> Have Orbitz turned back RAC on? If not, why?

Don't know so I can't answer.

>>I work only 1.5 miles from Microsoft and many of my students are from
>>Microsoft. I doubt they'd make up stories about it. And doubt even
>>more that Ballmer would give Oracle even dollar one if he could avoid
>>doing so.

> keep doubting :-)

I figure that's a really safe bet. And will know the day SQL Server is capable of supporting M/S as they will happily announce that fact. The lack of advertising that MS runs on its own software should be sufficient for even the most cynical view of my statement.

> Your repeated attempts to prove that SQLServer is a piss-ant RDBMS has reached
> a point of joke. Do u think sites like Barnes and Noble, tesco
> (one of the biggest online grocers) are fools to use SQL Server. Even Larry and
> Oracle realizes that their biggest competitor is SQLServer and not DB2.

And Microsoft views Oracle not DB2 as its as evidenced by the fact that they are struggling to add multiversioning to their product. Then likely sequences, packages, etc.

The companies you mention .... fools? I don't know them personally so I can comment on the people. On the technology? Yes I do.

> They already are a formidable competitor to Oracle and in another few
> years will start hammering O. They have the muscle and cash to do it.

You mean like they hammered Netscape and are now hammering RealNetworks? You mean by exercising monopolistic illegal market influence. Yeah I belive that.

> In the last few years, with O showing a precipitous decline in new
> database license sales (only last quarter they showed a growth), MS has shown
> a very impressive growth. IMO they are the fastest growing database in the market,
> linux threat notwithstanding. There was a nice article about it in
> rk-

So, in other words, vote for the winner. No doubt you'll try to do that in November too. When you can show me how to create a read consistent view of data in SQL Server I'll be interested. When you can show me how to cluster more than 4 instances I'll be interested. When you can show me how to make readers not block writers and writers not block readers I'll be interested. Well that and when you can show me how to run it on more than a single hardware and operating system architecture.

In case you haven't noticed ... I'm not impressed by Microsoft and any aspect of its so-called technology. Now if we were talking about marketing prowess I'd acknowledge they are the best. They'd do just as well, however, selling toilet paper.

Daniel Morgan
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Received on Mon Mar 29 2004 - 13:52:50 CST

Original text of this message