Re: Informix vs. Sybase vs. Oracle vs. (gasp) MS SQL Server

Tim Schaefer wrote:  

> THIS ^^^^ IS the point. What is so damn good about Sybase that would tell me it is
> better than Informix, with the apparent disadvantage of PLL? What's the kicker to
> Sybase that says, "Geez, I just gotta have it for *that* feature set!".

	Who said one was better than any of the others? Its all horses
	for courses. The original post asked for a comparison (always a
	stupid thing to do), then degenerated into RLL vs PLL. I, and
	one or two others, have been stating that the locking method
	isn't as important as some make out.

> I've used Sybase a while back, probably 6 years ago and didn't see anything it had
> that Informix didn't have. If anything it had no 4GL, which was important, and was
> extremely overpriced. Not to mention poor to no documentation. Now where is Sybase?
> Crawling back from the dead, probably should be called "Phoenix". It does persist
> in being supposedly better than Oracle, by using true threading, whereas Oracle has
> only simulated threading through multiple processes. But features? What does
> Sybase have that is sooooooooo freakin good that even makes it worthy?

	Again, who says its any good? Or, for that matter, if any of
	the others are any good. Like I said elsewhere, comparing features
	sets is pointless. This would apply for documentation and front
	ends etc. Times change and things change along with them.

	So, what are you getting so worked up about?

-am Received on Wed Dec 03 1997 - 00:00:00 CET