Re: Pro's & Con's on Oracle & SQL Svr?

"Daniel A. Morgan" <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:3AC6D9CC.39A5A0FB_at_exesolutions.com...
> > > I can't think of any criteria I care less about when deciding on an
 RDBMS
 than
> > > cost.
> >
> > You're obviously not in upper management.
>
> I am a hired-gun ...

You're an intellectually dishonest person who can't admit that he doesn't know the end of the 'create database' command from the start of the rest of his create database script.

God help your students, and as for the Fortune 500 (which you so readily trot out to prove your credentials), I notice that Nasdaq is down around 60% from a year ago. Shurely just a coincidence. But maybe not.

>a consultant for hire. And I usually report directly to
> upper management.

Do they know you claim that you can create databases without a system rollback segment? Do they know that when confronted with the truth, you just pretend it hasn't been stated?

>My point was not the money is not important. But rather that
> saving money on software and hardware (buying SQL Server and NT) at the
 expense
> of losing customers due to performance and down-time, or paying employees
 to
> come in on weekends and reboot servers, or worse yet having your database
 hacked
> and losing proprietary information is no savings at all. What counts is
 TOTAL
> cost of ownership over the life of the applications life cycle.
>
> > > Then ... and only then ... do I start worrying about the cost of the
 hardware,
> > > the cost of the O/S, the cost of the RDBMS, the cost of the sysadmins,
 the
 cost
> > > of DBAs and the cost of developers.
> > > It doesn't matter what it costs if it doesn't work as a long-term
> > solution.
> >
> > And hence the management-sys designer disagreement is born. Couple that
> > with what someone reads in a magazine about the (lower) costs of
 whatever
> > other database server, and you now have to worry about cost :-).
> >
> > I did not say cost should be the most important thing, but that it is
> > definitely an issue, how important depends on what your place is in the
> > company.
>
> As I stated above ... of course it is. But it is the total cost of
 ownership ...
> not the cost of the software and hardware alone: Something that is always
> insignificant in a major development project. Of course SQL Server costs
 less
> than Oracle. Of course NT/Win2000 costs less than Solaris. Of course
 Oracle on
> Solaris will be up 7x24x365. Of course NT/Win2000 won't be.

Lovely, objective, Fortune 500 objectivity. Has about much truth behind it as your claim that you don't have a system rollback segment.

>
> The day the numbers change Fortune 500 companies will stop paying people
 like me
> to convert systems based on SQL Server to Oracle.
>

Puff, puff, puff. I think what we learn here is that the Fortune 500 have no respect for the value of money.

HJR
> Daniel A. Morgan
>
Received on Sun Apr 01 2001 - 03:09:13 CDT