Re: SQL server Vs Oracle

A "universally acknowledged disaster?" Not in my experience, not by any means. I guess I haven't heard Access 95 referred to in this way before; BTW, where do we go to find the most up-to-date list of what is universally acknowledged?

Abbot Cooper wrote:

> Like everything else under the sun, SQL Server can be very easily ground to
> a halt be a poor design. The previous poster's "disaster" was undoubtedly of
> his own making I would venture to say. That doesn't prove that SQL Server is
> better, but it does refute the notion that SQL Server is a "disaster" in and
> of itself. If it were a disaster people would not be using it in the numbers
> which they do... Example: Access 95 is a universally acknowledged disaster.
> I would venture to say that there are probably more people using Access 2.0
> rather than 95. The point is that people do _not_ use horrible software if
> they can avoid it.
>
> --
> Abbot Cooper
> cooper_NoSpam_ab_at_mediaone.net
> Remove "_NoSpam_" before sending
>
> Nuno Souto wrote in message <7h94if$nmj$1_at_m2.c2.telstra-mm.net.au>...
> >Kerry Scott <kerrysco_at_msn.com> wrote in message
> >news:OIX0sX1m#GA.245_at_cpmsnbbsa03...
> >> It is a "disaster", he says. And yet, there are so many running it with
> >> plenty of users. I have heard this same argument for almost any software
> you
> >> care to mention. Experience tells me that "disastrous" software is often
> as
> >> not, the fault of a disastrous administrator.
> >
> >One day people in this industry are gonna learn that saying "there are so
> many
> >using <insert>" means absolutely nothing! Never believe the statements
> >of a software manufacturer! No matter how big it is. Period.
> >
> >I still well remember the wild statements put out by MS early in the life
> >of SQL-Server, making it look like a "fait-accompli" that all other
> databases
> >were crap. This sort of stuff was done by IBM early in the 60's and 70's,
> >then many UNIX makers in the 80's (including ORACLE) and now we all
> >have to suffer this idiocy again in the 90's. Will these guys never learn?
> >Some of us have been around in this industry a bit longer than the latest
> >MS re-invention of old software...
> >
> >As for the "disastrous administrator", I'd be VERY surprised to learn
> >that a bad administrator can stuff up a SQL-Server database. After all,
> >MS INSISTS that this product can be run by morons
> >(read: MS-certified morons).
> >
> >--
> >Cheers
> >Nuno Souto
> >nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au
> >http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm
> >
> >
Received on Tue May 11 1999 - 11:48:14 CDT