Re: SQL Server vs Oracle

From: Daniel A. Morgan <Daniel.Morgan_at_attws.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:50:16 -0700
Message-ID: <3B28F958.603540A9@attws.com>

Serge Rielau wrote:

> It seems like ~35% of the applications relying on a DBMS on Windows get by
> without Oracle or DB2, without all thsoe things supposedly missing from SQL
> Server.

35%? I'll buy that. So what you are saying is that 65%a of the people recognize the need for the features Oracle and DB/2 bring to the party. And that is just on Windows. How much SQL Server have you seen running on UNIX, VMS, and MVS lately?

> The right tool for the right job is all I said...

I agree.

> Sometimes the big ones are too big.

I agree. That's why there are 3x5 cards. <g>

> I talked about pure numbers of applications. It's the many little fish that are
> too big for access and too small for Oracle.
> (Note that what I''m saying is as much applicable to DB2 as to Oracle, no pun
> intended).
>
> Cheers
> Serge

No argument. SQL Server is fine for small companies and department lever apps. But running an enterprise on it is a joke.

Daniel A. Morgan Received on Thu Jun 14 2001 - 12:50:16 CDT