Re: Oracle is a bigger version of MS Access?

"Billy Verreynne" <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za> wrote in message news:1a75df45.0310012116.3c14546d_at_posting.google.com...
> How would you comment on the following? This is a snippet from an
> e-mail I received some hours ago about a newly proposed architecture
> which mainly focus on Java:
> ---
> In this, we have viewed ORACLE as just a 'BIG' MS Access or 'BIT
> BUCKET' with better management and processing tools. I don't believe
> this view has changed, and I do not foresee it changing.
>
> I do not believe we should use Oracle's Workflow, SNMP, Telnet, Web
> Services, etc tools because it moves away from our core requirements
> from Oracle.
>
> I feel that if we go down the route using ORACLE non-core
> functionality, we will painting ourselves in a corner. Our
> functionality will then become dependant on whether ORACLE supports it
> or not, and if it does, to what level does it support it. Also, will
> support for this feature continue now or in the future. This could be
> restrictive.
> --
>
> Comments will be appreciated.
>
> --
> Billy

Heh... a big MS Access, eh? I guess a server's just a big desktop computer? Or a SAN is just a big hard drive?

Here's a parallel scenario...

I think we should write our own operating system in binary, and run it on motherboards that we design, using chipsets that we burn ourselves. Why buy an off-the-shelf OS and motherboard when we can design something better then what already exists? Sure our paid time might be spent more wisely, but this way, we can customize the OS and motherboard and chips to do what we want.

That might be what the OS, mainboard, and chip companies do, though. They provide something that can be built on, to move a company's "big picture" further into the future.

-Thomas Received on Thu Oct 02 2003 - 19:14:34 CDT