Re: Is Oracle deliberately difficult?

"Nuno Souto" <nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam> wrote in message news:39acdc19.706444_at_news-server...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:06:47 -0500, "Jason Kratz"
> <jkratz_at_rctanalytics.debug.com> wrote:
>
> >Sorry but this post reeks of Oracle elitism.
>
> Good.
>

Not good. elitism of any type is not an attribute one should be proud of.

>
> > All of the various relational
> >db products out there server a purpose.
>
> Nope. They might address a need, but they don't serve a purpose.
>

Uh....if they address a need then they in fact do serve a purpose.

> >Personally I always found Sybase
> >much easier to work with.
>
> Nothing wrong with that. But it would be interesting to know why.
>

Temporary tables are a quick example.

> > It might not be able to handle the same size db
> >as Oracle but then again so what??
> >
>
> Well, probably because it was never designed to be a proper relational
> database management system. Just a database product, that's all.
> Nothing more. Totally out of proportion with their marketing hype of
> a few years ago...
>
>

Well...first off I shudder to think of a technical person actually believing marketing hype. Secondly how is it not a proper RDBMS? All of the stuff that seems to count from a design standpoint is there as it is on Oracle.

Jason Received on Wed Aug 30 2000 - 11:46:57 CDT