Re: L:ist - Can do/do better in MS SQL than Oracle

"tingl" <tlam15_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f487699f.0203281252.58f3f2de_at_posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> I have worked with both SQL Server and Oracle. I have not seen
> anything you can do with SQL Server that can't be done in Oracle. The
> only advantage of SQL Server is ease of management and configuration.
> It requires little attention most of the time, but the trade off here
> is flexibility. With all things taken into consideration, I still
> prefer Oracle to SQL Server. The main reasons are portability and
> scalability. And most of all we do not want to be locked into any
> single vendor.

I'm always a little surprised by this single vendor argument. If you decide to be an Oracle (or IBM or whatever) shop surely the single vendor argument still applies. how many vendors do you buy your desktop OS's from? or your servers. How many network operating systems do you run for file/print/email? yet some how when it comes to buying server apps folks seem to think it is necessarily good to buy from a range of vendors when they are perfectly happy locking 90+% of their IT infrastructure into highly limited development paths.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK