Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle licence question

Re: Oracle licence question

From: Tony Rogerson <tonyrogerson_at_sqlserverfaq.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:24:21 -0000
Message-ID: <dtt2p4$jvj$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>


Its not what it says here:
http://www.oracle.com/database/product_editions.html

And what about the BI stuff?

-- 
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials


"Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend_at_comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:44020C02.6030801_at_comcast.net...

> Tony Rogerson wrote:
>
>>
>> Secure Application Roles are not included with Oracle Standard, but the
>> equiv is with SQL Server Standard
>
> Where is the doc citation for MS's equivalent of secure application roles
> ?
>
>> Data Encryption is included with SQL Server Standard, it isn't in Oracle
>> Standard
>
> Data Encryption is in all editions of Oracle. It's just the transparent
> data encryption that isn't. SQL Server does not have transparent data
> encryption
>
>> Advanced Security is not included with Oracle Standard, nor is Label
>> Security - again, all can be achieved in SQL Server standard.
>
> You cannot do Label Security (or build a virtual private database) with
> SQL Server.
>
>> No messaging
>
> Messaging is in all editions of Oracle Database
>
>> There is a lot more missing too.
>>
>> So your statement above is just completely wrong and mis-leading.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black
>
>>
>> And then rant you make about the salaries, if you've really been in IT
>> for 36 years then you'll have a better understanding of the market place
>> and realise people swap platforms, take me; 5 yrs DB2, 6 months Oracle
>> and 13 years SQL Server and out of those 3 Oracle was quite definitely
>> the hardest to work with (Oracle 7 i think it was).
>>
>
> I am seriously starting to believe that any difficulty you may have had
> with Oracle was more releated to an ability to understand what was written
> in the docs. I will be magnanimous and assume that this was purely the
> fault of the docs, for which I apologize.
Received on Sun Feb 26 2006 - 14:24:21 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US