Re: Oracle sucks!

wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au (Nuno Souto) wrote:

>henryl_at_bengaldevelopment.com (Henry Lafleur) wrote in message news:<30f1a81b.0305010609.4a3fbbdb_at_posting.google.com>...
>
>> Also, I don't think it's better or worse than SQL 2000, but I just
>> like SQL Server better because it serves my needs better and it's
>> easier to administer and use. It also seems more internally and
>> externally consistent. Over all, I prefer open source projects to
>> either.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>>
>> Since SQL 7. In SQL 2000 Microsoft added cascading updates and
>> deletes.
>
>
>I said "properly". The stuff in SQL7 was nothing more than a
>tick mark. Nobody used it because it was unusable.
>SS2K only came out a year ago. Oracle has had declarative
>RI for nearly ten years now. I wonder which one will be
>more reliable and usable...
>
>
>>
>> Where is Netscape? (A. Running Open Source as Mozilla on my Linux
>> box.)
>
>And if you think Oracle is like Netscape you're day dreaming...
>
>
>>
>> I know I like it. What else do I need to know?
>>
>
>Nothing. Just don't use "logical" arguments to sustain
>your personal preference. Simply declare it. Like you just
>did.
>
>> >
>> > Ah, but that will not create a compatibility problem like
>> > the one you mentioned above between the "standards"?
>>
>> No it won't.
>
>Of course it will. Once you let the cat out of the bag
>there is simply no guarantee that the source code won't
>be tampered with.
>
>>Perhaps you don't follow Open Source,
>
>No, I just started in IT in the last 6 months...
><sigh...>
>
>
>> but open source
>> projects tend to gravitate toward standards, not away from them.
>
>
>Sure. What standards does Postgres follow then? ANSI?
>
>
>> And
>> I'm talking about changing optimization parameters at compile time,
>> not changing standards compliance.
>
>Then a little bit gets added here and there, a patch now and then,
>and suddenly nobody knows what the heck is going on or what
>version are they working with. Try selling that idea to
>your corporate customers who have to maintain dozens or hundreds
>of applications and db servers and see how far you get.
>
>Cheers
>Nuno Souto
>wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam

 Great points ,Nuno, about 'open source' ...A lot of non-IT managers see the cost ( free) and figure that it has to be more economical to use free stuff than to pay big bucks for something that they don't see as much different...

Those are the people who , to paraphrase someone, 'know the price of everything but the value of nothing'.

The 'true' cost of something includes the purchase price, the support costs( contract or salaries to IT support staff), the ongoing update/maintenance changes and their cost in down time, person-hours, etc.

Also, and most importantly, IMHO, the lack of technical support from the manufacturer of the product, whose knowledge of the product will (or should be) greater then any end user can develop is a major drawback to open source software..

Add to this the need to be compatible with various OSs, existing systems, legacy data, etc. and no corporation is going to jump into software that is still mainly a techie project...

 Just my 2c.....

John   

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- Received on Fri May 02 2003 - 16:58:29 CEST