Re: db2 vs oracle

"Data Goob" <datagoob_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7x3Yc.202$Qy4.36_at_fe10.usenetserver.com...
> 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 )
>
>

You know not what you write about. I worked for a company that included Oracle as the database for an Electronic Medical Records company who's main customers were ambulatory care centers. (Your standard Dr.'s office) The customer did not need nor did they have a DBA or even an IS department on staff. Someone who was desktop savy could install the whole system from the excellent step by step documentation. (we started on Oracle 7.1 which was current at the time) People ran it for many years without a problem and as long as they followed the procedures in our manual (eg backup, hot or cold) then they didn't have any problems even if they had to restore. They usually called us for restores. We were installed at several thousand sites all across the US. Dr. offices are very cheap and they did not willingly hire people just to administer the system. We supported Oracle running on a variety of platforms. (Netware, NT, HPUX, and if we had a larger QA department could have easily supported Sun and AIX. QA, understandably, wanted to run complete regression passes for every platform. With about 150 employees in the entire company at the time, there were just not enough resources to reasonably do it.)

So one can set things up incorrectly and cause all sorts of headaches and make work, but if you take a little care and set it up right you don't have to spend time screwing around.

So you are completely wrong. Oracle has gotten easier to administer since 7.1.
Jim

> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
> > Data Goob wrote:
> >
> >> In the book they mention that Oracle is more about applications than
the
> >> database.
> >
> >
> > And this is a surprise to you? Where have you been hiding?
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > Cracking Oracle and cracking DB2 are of equivalent difficulty. But your
> > comments about "grid" and "clustering" in the same sentence demonstrate
> > a lack of understanding about what "grid" means to Oracle.
> >
>
Received on Sat Aug 28 2004 - 20:20:43 CEST