Re: informix market share

mjbox01_at_gmail.com wrote:
> RollForward Wizard wrote:

>> I can tell you without any further discussion on this that Informix,
>> DB2, Sybase, SQL-Server, MySQL, are ALL EASIER TO LEARN THAN ORACLE.
>> There is no more to be said about it, you can crow till the fucking
>> cows come home, Oracle is a beast compared to any other db out there,
>> it is difficult to manage, has fewer options overall on how to use it,
>> and it just sucks from an architectural standpoint.  Now, believe
>> what you want, you won't convince me otherwise.  And I really don't
>> care at this point whether or not you agree, there really is a lot
>> of better choices than Oracle, period.
>>

Possible. I didn't start the argument.

> Ask people from Wales, Iran, France, Germany and the US which is the
> easiest language to learn and guess how many answers you will get. So
> it does not matter how long you leave your caps lock key on for, you
> are just spouting wind.
>

Actually, that defers to Daniel, he is the king of spout.

> And if multi version read consistency is such an arhitectural howler,
> how come Microsoft who have the only real competitor aside from IBM out
> of the databases you mention are trying their hardest to implement it.

Well, think about that for a moment. Once Microsoft has it I guess customers certainly won't want to spend their money with Oracle now will they? Ha!

> It will leave IBM alone with MySQL and Sybase as the only supplier of a
> database where you have to code concurrency in your application. Which
> is about as attractive as it sounds.
>

Is that such a bad thing? Your statements appear to demean other engines as being inferior to Oracle without this "feature". But what are customers really buying when they buy an Oracle database engine? Old technology. The engine never seems to change, just the wrapping and marketing. For this one feature you claim to put Oracle on top, one has to consider all the other non-features the engine brings with it, especially when all you have to do is evaluate other products and see the comparisons. You begin to see the limitations, the restrictions, the narrow band of options that Oracle really has, meaning it really can only be set up with very few architectural options compared to other products out there. It's not that great. If YOU are the one actually putting the money on the table to spend it on Oracle or something else you would do the comparisons. But I know you haven't and probably won't. Ego works, and Larry knows it.

But back to my original point, you won't convince me that "Oracle is as easy to use as DB2". I just won't believe it. People that think Oracle "technology" is great really haven't used other products or other architectures, just like Microsoft-only people, so they really don't know. Oracle people get sucked into Larry's megalomania, brashness, and bigger-is-better mentality. If that's for you, go for it. But it doesn't equate into better products, better customer service or a better way to do things. To non-Oracle people it just looks like what it is. Received on Tue Nov 29 2005 - 08:11:39 CST