Re: Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:39:19 -0800
Message-ID: <1080617940.174456@yasure>

rkusenet wrote:

> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote
>
>

>>>Have Orbitz turned back RAC on? If not, why?
>>
>>Don't know so I can't answer.

>
>
> You can check eweek. AFAIK they have got rid of RAC for good (when I
> read last).

AFAIK is not a statement of fact. The truth is that neither of us actually knows. And that is where it will sit until someone that isn't speculating weighs in.

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

>
> You know it is this kind of arrogance which ticks off many. You are
> a c.d.i lurker too. You must be knowing some guys there who trash
> oracle. I remember you once asked "are companies like boeing, AT&T
> fools to use oracle and not informix".

I've worked with Informix for some projects, something you well know so exactly what is your point?

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

>
> I don't think anyone is accusing MS for illegal tactics
> when it comes to back office and server products like WIN
> 2003/SQLK 2003. Their bullying tactics (which I don't deny)
> is restricted to only desktop applications.

I am aware of legal pending action that causes me to be a little less sure of your statements. Don't forget Microsoft's oft made threat to package SQL Server into its server O/S.

>>So, in other words, vote for the winner. No doubt you'll try to do
>>that in November too.
>>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.

>
> I would, if Canadians are allowed to vote :-). And what is wrong in
> voting for the winner. After all I know of many Informix installation
> which switched over to Oracle just because they know Oracle won't
> go away, even if it means shelling huge amount of money
> to get a performance not comparable with their earlier Informix one.

If Informix performance is better than that of Oracle ... perhaps you would be so kind as to show me and others where that is demonstrated:

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp?resulttype=all

If you can't then my assumption is that you did a good job of tuning what you knew well. And a lousy job of tuning what you didn't know well. Hardly a shocker.

> I remember being an audience to a debate between two fanatical
> DBAs (Oracle and Informix). The Oracle guy said "if Informix is
> that good, then how Oracle owns the market". I butted in
> saying "the same argument can be used to pimp for MS SQL Server too".

I have never taken a single dollar from Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, or any other SQL RDBMS company: Nor do I own a single share of stock in any of them. So if you want to throw around words like "pimp" do so in the mirror but not here. Thank you.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Received on Mon Mar 29 2004 - 21:39:19 CST