Re: db2 vs oracle

I remain jealous of you Daniel for having access to really good weed! It seems to have the intended effect. Must be that stuff from Vancouver I heard about.

Anyway since you opened the door...

DB2 is far less difficult to understand and master than Oracle. More specifically Oracle is the difficult database, whereas DB2 is a breeze to install and use.

Oracle is a collection of disparate pieces of bolt-on software that requires years to "master" and lots of people to make it successful. This is why it is happy in larger organizations and completely inappropriate in smaller ones. DB2 has a clearly defined scalability that Oracle has yet to implement. Instead Oracle continues to opt for smoke and mirrors. 10g has yet to be proven in the business world as even relevant, much less RAC ( bwaahahaaaa! :-) I would say DB2 and SQL-Server are more equivalent in ease of use, but the differentiator in DB2 is that it can scale way beyond what SQL-Server can, on low-cost hardware, and O/S. Oracle requires a lot of money, time, and hardware, something I would be very concerned about as a business wanting to be competitive and keep costs down. Of course if money is no issue, go for Oracle, it will increase Larry's wallet and decrease your own. Ford Motor by the way recently decided that using Oracle was a good learning experience, but not suitable for their business after what, 5 years of dicking around with it. ( See Eweek )

Daniel Morgan wrote:

> Data Goob wrote:
>

>> In the book they mention that Oracle is more about applications than the
>> database.

>> Certainly the grid is
>> interesting, but it is not necessarily clustering, nor is it really even
>> applicable to a lot of business requirements.  Oracle will be a big nut
>> to crack in an organization that has never used a relational database.