Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

From: Doug Hutcheson <doug.hutcheson_at_dnr.qld.gov.au.no.spam.thank.you.mam>
Date: 6 May 1999 22:24:22 GMT
Message-ID: <01be980f$3a0e4e20$7263f283@min5-broughs.dnr.qld.gov.au>

Arvin,
Methinks the previous poster had his tongue very firmly in his cheek when he wrote the last paragraph.
Mind you, if you took that seriously, I have this fantastic bridge for sale - never raced, rallied or rolled, painted every three years, weighs approx. 3 million tonnes, going to the highest bidder for removal or scrap (but don't tell anyone).
"8-)
Doug
--
--
Having fun with Access...
but then, I'm on medication...

Dev Ashish's site & FAQ: http://home.att.net/~dashish Microsoft support: http://support.microsoft.com/support News archive: www.dejanews.com.
Data Recovery: www.pksolutions.com

---

The surest sign for the existence of intelligent life in the universe is that we have not been contacted.

---

Arvin Meyer <a_at_m.com> wrote in article <7gshj5$7dd$1_at_esinet2.esinet.net>...
>
> dgallardo_at_my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7gsdqh$2mi$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >With regard to the more academic argument, of course, there is no
question:
> >Oracle is way better than SQL Server. And Microsoft is an evil empire,
> Bill
> >Gates is the AntiChrist, and there is no hope once you've been
assimilated.
>
> I doubt that Oracle is *better* than SQL-Server. Each tool has its niche.
>
> For an AntiChrist, Bill Gates sure gives away a lot of his own money for
> charitable purposes.
>
> I am assimilated <g> (richer and happier too <vbg>)
> -----
> Arvin Meyer
> onsite_at_esinet.net
>
>
>
Received on Thu May 06 1999 - 17:24:22 CDT