Re: Tech Comparison of Oracle versus MS Sqlserver 2000

Jim Kennedy wrote:

> I like it. Good suggestions people. Thanks for the ideas.
> Jim
>
> --
> Replace part of the email address: kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com
> with family. Remove the negative part, keep the minus sign. You can figure
> it out.
> "Tim X" <timx_at_spamto.devnul.com> wrote in message
> news:871y3bpddc.fsf_at_tiger.rapttech.com.au...
> > >>>>> "DA" == DA Morgan <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> writes:
> >
> > DA> Norman Dunbar wrote:
> > >> Hi Billy,
> > >>
> > >> I do enjoy your occasional rants :o)
> > >>
> > >> <begin myrant> The problem in business nowadays is that purchasing
> > >> decisions are based on some bean counter deciding yes or no to any
> > >> requests. Alternatively, the business chooses Microsoft because
> > >> that's what everyone else is doing.
> > >>
> > >> Sad but true, the benefits of one over the other are of no
> > >> interest to bean counters, it's the bottom line that counts. And
> > >> who tells them what the TCO is - the marketing bods, so whoever
> > >> gets in with the lowest TCO, usually gets the contract. And then,
> > >> when we technical bods have to sort out the
> > >> mess/problems/inconsistancies/etc the TCO is never anywhere near
> > >> what was quoted, and the company has to put up with it anyway
> > >> because it would be too costly to change now ..... <end myrant>
> > >>
> > >> Cheers, Norm.
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------- Norman Dunbar Database/Unix
> > >> administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd.
> > >> mailto:Norman.Dunbar_at_LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289
> > >> 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com
> > >> -------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message----- From: Billy Verreynne
> > >> [mailto:vslabs_at_onwe.co.za] Posted At: Friday, January 17, 2003
> > >> 12:44 PM Posted To: server Conversation: Tech Comparison of Oracle
> > >> versus MS Sqlserver 2000 Subject: Re: Tech Comparison of Oracle
> > >> versus MS Sqlserver 2000
> > >>
> > >> Karen Abgarian wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Ok, is there anything GOOD about the Sql Server?
> > >> >
> > >> > The article is maybe all truth but looks biased.
> > >>
> > >> Correct.
> > >>
> > >> Feature to feature comparison is WORTHLESS. Period.
> > >>
> > >> If it is not, then I will put it to that person that he is in
> > >> search of a penis enlargement by wanting to have the kewlest
> > >> rocking database.
> > >>
> > >> <SNIP>
> >
> > DA> True. But IT professionals define the terms of the
> > DA> comparison. For example I could go into a meeting this afternoon,
> > DA> meet with a CFO and state the following:
> >
> > DA> "We are heavily leaning toward SQL Server due to the lower
> > DA> licensing cost but we are concerned about the fact that it only
> > DA> runs on the Windows operating system and we anticipate having
> > DA> about 31/2 days of downtime per year during which our customers
> > DA> would be unable to access our web site to make purchases or pay
> > DA> for their orders. Since our company does about $150,000 per day
> > DA> in business over our web site the cost of that downtime would be
> > DA> at least $525,000. And then, of course,there is the increased
> > DA> risk of the server being hacked. What do you think we should do?"
> >
> > DA> And you will find most CFO's more than capable of covering their
> > DA> own exposed posteriors.
> >
> > DA> There are things more important to bean counters than simple
> > DA> licensing costs. One of them is not being held accountable for
> > DA> the business being temporarily out of business. If you transfer
> > DA> the risk to them they will CYA just like everybody else.
> >
> > DA> Daniel Morgan
> >
> > Yes, and its an approach which works.
> >
> > Last week was a very good week for all of the technical staff at my
> > work. We have just gone through a 6 month review to select a new
> > application for our core business. Two vendors were in the running -
> > one was heavily MS based and claimed to be database neutral. The other
> > is totally Oracle based. We were concerned the first product would be
> > selected because we already had another of their applications. This
> > was a big concern for us at the technical level becuase the product we
> > already have from them is REALLY bad. They have achieved database
> > neutrality by essentially treating the db as a storage device - no use
> > of stored procedures, most tables don't even have indexes or even
> > primary keys! It doesn't use sequences, but instead manages their own
> > at the client level in a way which does not guarantee uniqueness
> > etc. The product was chosen by the previous IT manager who has since
> > left.
> >
> > Luckily, the new IT manager is willing to listen to his technical
> > staff. The vendor of the MS based product realised there was some
> > discontent from the technical level - in fact so much so, they
> > actually offered to give us their product for free and ony wanted
> > support contracts (this should tell you something in itself).
> >
> > We put a proposal together which essentially said "Yes the MS based
> > product is being offered for free and yes it will possibly integrate
> > better with the other product we have, but technically it is so poor,
> > we expect X number of days downtime per year with a revenue loss of $X
> > per day plus we expect to have to pay $x dollars in support. The
> > oracle based product on the other had will cost us $x million, but is
> > technically superior, will have minimal downtime and will require less
> > expensive technical support because it uses only Oracle and this is
> > the product we are most familiar with and have the most expertise
> > with.
> >
> > We got the Oracle based solution and now I am a very happy chappy.
> >
> > I think the lesson from this is not to focus on the setup and
> > establishment costs so much as focus on the possible downtime and loss
> > of revenue, support costs and expected lifetime of the product.
> >
> > Tim
> > --
> > Tim Cross
> > The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail
> is
> > to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
> > really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!

You're welcome.

The reason I posted the above is that too often techies are intimiated by bean counters and let the bean counters choose the field of battle ... dollars and cents (Euros and Yen). This is nonsense and anyone that has had this experience needs to go on-line, or to a book store, and find a copy of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." Read as carefully the section on selecting the field of battle as you do the installation notes before installing 9iAS.

No techie should ever loose a battle with finance. Because, quite frankly, we can understand what they do and they are clueless about what we do. If we declare that something is not compatible with LDAP how do they know? The only thing they can look at is numbers that are in black on white paper that we can read.

If you've been losing these battles it is time to look at why, redefine the battlefield, and have at them with spears and axes. The sharpest weapon in the IS/IT arsenal is making accounting accept the responsibility for loss of revenue and customer dissatisfaction. From my experience they will flee the field of battle with their tails tucked between their legs.

Daniel Morgan Received on Sat Jan 18 2003 - 11:28:19 CST