Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: database market share 2003

Re: database market share 2003

From: Noons <>
Date: 16 Jun 2004 20:47:11 -0700
Message-ID: <>

"Data Goob" <> wrote in message news:<aFWzc.370$>...
> Take a few deep breaths of air, and try to calm down, you write like
> you're hyper-ventalating.

You have no idea whatsoever how I write, so stop that crap before I turn it around on you.

> Sorry if I insult you right off the bat, but geez, your statement
> is so blatantly wrong. I'm not sure what database products you've
> actually had experience with, but it appears you haven't even used
> anything but one.

Really? And your claim that my statement is wrong is based and explained by your "deduction" of my past experience? Care to make sense next time?

> "Idiot developer" ? Geez you must be in a really bad
> situation to demean people so much.

No. I just call them by the name they should have.

> Actually, the necessity for training is a lot like the need
> for a help desk for your software. If the software is built
> correctly, the user-interface and online help should deter the
> need for a lot of 'training' or help-desk support.

Actually, you don't have a CLUE about how infrastructure products are developed or used. Here is a hint: databases are NOT to be used by end users. Unless they are called Access and are a joke of a toy. Got it?

> If your
> help desk is inundated with a lot of calls, what does that
> say about your software?
> If you need a lot of training, what
> does that say about the design of the interface?

Probably that it is used a lot?

> a DBA. SQL-Server is very robust, takes a lot of abuse, and is
> pretty good with a lot of different applications.

Funny. So is Oracle. Or just about any other database you might want to mention... See how cretin your comparisons are?

> It can literally
> run for years without much attendance by anyone knowing what they
> are doing with it--this comes from my own personal use of the
> product in our environment and we have done a lot with it.

Your "personal use"? And that is presumably more credible than anyone else's use? Here is mine: Oracle-based apps that run for 8 years ON NT without intervention from a DBA or any other person. How's that for size?

> It's
> not my favorite, but certainly it's not difficult to use or abuse,
> and has rarely if ever failed us. Failures were always user
> problems.

Why are you blaming users?

> Well, we've found that the more of a megalomaniac running the
> company, the less the quality of the product.

Yeah, that sounds about right for Microsoft...

> Oracle's culture
> is of particular note in that the whole company culture centers
> around sales, not product quality.

Load of bullshit.

> Oracle is living off of a
> database that hasn't been re-engineered in what, 10 years?

Why don't you get your facts right instead of just regurgitating the CRAP that goes for markteting information in your neck of the woods? You don't have the foggiest how many times Oracle has re-engineered their product, do you? Here is a clue: try 5 times.

> SQL-Server hasn't been upgraded in at least 5 years,

Some would say since it got bought from Sybase...

> but it is
> a better product for a lot of reasons

Of course. "lot of reasons" is such a credible argument...

> --especially good that it
> is at least a lot more like other products.

Which ones?

> Oracle is vastly
> different from the rest.

You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, do you? :)   

> SQL-Server also is making inroads
> from the SMB up, and is not trivial in terms of how serious
> businesses take it.

Once more, in English this time?

> Well, it appears to me that you have not used anything but one
> product ( and I'm not sure which one that is ) .

I have. And it is clear to me you have no clue.

> Uh, well, I just installed it last week on one of our systems,
> 10 minutes tops. Of course on a slower system it might take a
> little longer, but geez, a child could install SQL-Server, it's
> not that difficult.

"slower system", a P4 2GHz? What next does it need?

> Oracle 9i was a pretty immature product the last time I screwed
> around with it,

"screwed around" is the operative term here.

> I had to create a lot of scripts to manage it,

and that is a demonstration of how difficult it is to install?

> and its software footprint was over 5 GB of god only knows
> what.

You don't get omelettes without cracking eggs. Funny enough, ES is running in my 256Mb notebook and using 1Gb of disk space for ALL the software. Must be a "weird" 9i that you're "screwing around" with...

And given that M$ themselves recommended as the main solution to ANY NT problem for years: "just add memory", it appears your claim is worth just about as much as all the other conclusions.

> licensing costs were also prohibitive as well.

Funny. It cost me US$100.

> Heh-heh. Intelligence could be a factor.

Definitely. Just to show how much is needed to make the "easy product" run...

> Wow, well, you can't argue with that. It's interesting that you
> would want to compare Oracle, quoting "its interface has stayed the
> same for the last 15 years", with other products that have advanced
> their engines, tools, and interfaces several times over in the same
> time period. Interesting.

Once more, the total lack of db knowledge of your argument shows up. Databases are infra-structure software. As such, you do NOT want to have them change their interface (SQL) with each new revision. The maintenance impact would be enormous. So, their interface (SQL) better stay the same. You are once again confusing toy products with a "multimedia-rich gui" front-end with infra-structure products. Received on Wed Jun 16 2004 - 22:47:11 CDT

Original text of this message