BearItAll wrote:
> It might also be good for Oracle in that it makes their database more
> likely to appear as the database backbone for web application sites.
> Particularly when compared with the horrible MSSQL2005 (what a pile
> of pants that one is).
More reflexive anti-MS ignorance. SQL Server 2005 is a very good product.
While the engine itself isn't in a league with Oracle, the included admin
and analysis and reporting tools are much better than anything the
competition has produced.
> The other side, Oracle for small databases or personal use, I can't
> see that really. It is just too big for most people to handle.
There's a 10g Express Edition that's free and easy to download and install
and work with (of course it's easy to install and work with - I use
Windows. I don't know about the LInux version).
SQL Server 2005 Express also free and easy to work with.
> I hope this move is successfull for Oracle, I have had a few fights
> with Oracle over the years, I still walk with a limp when it's chilly
> out, but I'll always be first to praise their product, because it
> really is the best database engine you would ever come across.
>
> I know I should have said IMHO, but blow that, I don't mind risking
> my neck for this one because I am sure it would be safe.
I think you're right, unreservedly. It's an awesome db server.
In '99 I used to "argue" with an Oracle DBA about Access vs Oracle (whenever
I would find some tiny thing Access would do better than Oracle - and there
were a few). I knew it wasn't a comparison, of course, but it was fun to
rag on him. When I started getting into some Oracle DBA activities myself,
I realized the enormous power and sophistication of the system.
|
|
