Re: Oracle vs. Sybase

matt wrote:
> As the originator of the 'awesome' word that started this whole mess,
> I'll say my first reaction was that of being hurt. But then I remembered
> that we get all kinds of bigots on these forums and they all react
> strongly to their particular opinions. I suppose that's human nature.
>

Don't get hurt, Matt. It wasn't the intention. Maybe I should have put a <g> after that one, but I forgot. Sorry if you took it another way. The mess was caused by Todd's caustic remarks which are IMO quite disproportionate to the matter. I'm replying to him on that subject, so if you're interested stay tuned, otherwise grin and ignore it. It's really not THAT important. Only following it because I can currently afford the time to do so, otherwise it would have been dropped long ago...  

> For the record I've 3 years of Oracle, 5 years of Sybase, and 1.5 year
> of MSServer. I go back to version 3.8 Sybase/3.0 Oracle.

Hmmm, 3+5+1.5 = 9.5
Given that Oracle 3.0 (Crickey, you were brave!) was out of the picture in 1983 and we are now in 1997, that's around 14 years. IOW, 4.5 years unaccounted for. Back in 83, Sybase wasn't even in the picture. Relax, just joking at the apparent inconsistency! ;-) (See, this time I put the joke flag on!)

> You know,
> fundamentally, they all do the same stuff and they all do it well. It
> seems that the vendor decision rarely comes down technical merits only,
> anymore.

How true!

> And rarely do I believe what a vendor will tell me about their
> performance and things. But after some pain with System 10 and some pain
> getting Oracle 7.0 to 7.3 and relatviely stable, when I plugged in the
> System 11 product for use in a fairly complex data base system, the out
> of the box peformance was truly awesome. Every thing they and TPC had
> promised.
>

Good to hear. I that context the "awesome" is quite appropriate. It wasn't in the original, hence my comment.

Cheers
Nuno Souto Received on Wed Jun 25 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT