I think he is only querying about database here. When it comes to
software purchase, I always like to keep my options open. With Oracle,
I have more choices of what OS and hardware to use. They don't require
me to run my database on Windows.
You are right that we could go single vendor on either SQL Server or
Oracle, but that's only a single product (database). A decision on one
product should not limit the choice of another, at least in my
opinion.
"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<3ca470b5$0$8511$cc9e4d1f_at_news.dial.pipex.com>...
> "tingl" <tlam15_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f487699f.0203281252.58f3f2de_at_posting.google.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have worked with both SQL Server and Oracle. I have not seen
> > anything you can do with SQL Server that can't be done in Oracle. The
> > only advantage of SQL Server is ease of management and configuration.
> > It requires little attention most of the time, but the trade off here
> > is flexibility. With all things taken into consideration, I still
> > prefer Oracle to SQL Server. The main reasons are portability and
> > scalability. And most of all we do not want to be locked into any
> > single vendor.
>
> I'm always a little surprised by this single vendor argument. If you decide
> to be an Oracle (or IBM or whatever) shop surely the single vendor argument
> still applies. how many vendors do you buy your desktop OS's from? or your
> servers. How many network operating systems do you run for file/print/email?
> yet some how when it comes to buying server apps folks seem to think it is
> necessarily good to buy from a range of vendors when they are perfectly
> happy locking 90+% of their IT infrastructure into highly limited
> development paths.
Received on Mon Apr 01 2002 - 17:16:14 CST
