Re: SQL Server for Oracle DBAs
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 18:28:46 +0100
On 2008-05-26, Tony Rogerson <tonyrogerson_at_torver.net> wrote:
>> Of course the important thing is that there is a difference. However,
>> you give the impression of criticising Oracle when you don't know enough
>> about the what and why of the differences to make any meaningful
> I wasn't critising oracle; I was merely commentating based on experience on
> an attitude a proportion of Oracle DBA's have in that they try and apply
> oracle doctorine and theory against SQL Server installs - they always fail
> and cause problems for the businesses they work in.
And we can comment based on experience of an attitude that a proportion of SQL Server DBAs have, in that they try to apply SQL Server doctrine and theory against Oracle installs - they always fail and cause problems for the businesses they work in.
> Now, if you would like me to criticse oracle then let's start with the
> "unbreakable" campaign - what a load of twoddle that was - out and out pure
> Now compare that to the SQL Server product record in the past 5 years -
> we've had 0 security vunerabilities; well - aside from a recent one that
> purtained to be a SQL Server problem when in fact it was an injection attack
> cause by very sloppy programming from a developer that would have caused a
> problem whatever the database, it just hit SQL Server installs more because
> and let's face it - there are dramatically more of them.
To get back to the original question, what should we read to get a clear picture of how to set up and use SQL Server, that is written by someone who does not annoy us every third paragraph by demonstrating a serious misunderstanding of relational theory, SQL standards, or even basic computing principles. And further, who is not making the same mistake we discussed above, i.e. to assume that all systems are the same and that some specific experience of theirs is a general principle.
E Received on Mon May 26 2008 - 12:28:46 CDT