Re: db2 vs oracle

Jim,

Thanks for your comments. I disagree that I'm 'completely' wrong, but it doesn't really matter, I'm not using Oracle. Oracle is a beast of a pig all the way around, but you would only know that if you used something besides Oracle. Oracle has excellent marketing, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Thanks!

Jim Kennedy wrote:
>
>
> You know not what you write about. I worked for a company that included
> Oracle as the database for an Electronic Medical Records company who's main
> customers were ambulatory care centers. (Your standard Dr.'s office) The
> customer did not need nor did they have a DBA or even an IS department on
> staff. Someone who was desktop savy could install the whole system from the
> excellent step by step documentation. (we started on Oracle 7.1 which was
> current at the time) People ran it for many years without a problem and as
> long as they followed the procedures in our manual (eg backup, hot or cold)
> then they didn't have any problems even if they had to restore. They
> usually called us for restores. We were installed at several thousand sites
> all across the US. Dr. offices are very cheap and they did not willingly
> hire people just to administer the system. We supported Oracle running on a
> variety of platforms. (Netware, NT, HPUX, and if we had a larger QA
> department could have easily supported Sun and AIX. QA, understandably,
> wanted to run complete regression passes for every platform. With about 150
> employees in the entire company at the time, there were just not enough
> resources to reasonably do it.)
>
> So one can set things up incorrectly and cause all sorts of headaches and
> make work, but if you take a little care and set it up right you don't have
> to spend time screwing around.
>
> So you are completely wrong. Oracle has gotten easier to administer since
> 7.1.
> Jim
>
Received on Sat Aug 28 2004 - 20:45:35 CEST