Re: Comparison of Oracle commans Vs. SQL Server Commands

From: <euan.garden_at_gmail.com>
Date: 27 May 2007 19:40:19 -0700
Message-ID: <1180320019.633272.62330@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>

On May 27, 11:40 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> euan.gar..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> > On May 26, 9:33 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> >> euan.gar..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On May 24, 9:43 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> >>>> Brian Peasland wrote:
> >>>>> Geri Reshef wrote:
> >>>>>> Where can I find a short comparision of SQL comands of both products?
> >>>>>> I need to find the Oracle equivalents of someSQL Servercommands
> >>>>>> (e.g. date functions).
> >>>>> This is one of the better ones I've found:
> >>>>>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/reskit/part2/c0...
> >>>>> It's written by Microsoft in the hopes you'll migrate toSQL Server, but
> >>>>> you can use the doc to go the other way too!
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Brian
> >>>> I started reviewing the site but had to stop when my laughter started
> >>>> bothering those around me.
> >>>> This is priceless:
> >>>> "Clustering is a shared disk, hardware solution protecting against
> >>>> computer failure."
> >>>> Forget cache fusion.
> >>>> Forget TAF and FCF.
> >>>> Forget that RAC is not a hardware solution.
> >>>> Forget the fact that shared disk is a very small part of RAC.
> >>>> It is best to suspend one's synapses when reading Microsoft docs.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Daniel A. Morgan
> >>>> University of Washington
> >>>> damor..._at_x.washington.edu
> >>>> (replace x with u to respond)
> >>>> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org-Hidequoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Did you bother to actually look at the context for your comment? This
> >>> is a 7 year old document...
> >> It is the web. If it is obsolete it is Microsoft's responsibility to
> >> update. As long as it is out there, on their URL, it is inaccurate.
> >> And it was inaccurate 7 years ago too.
> >> --
> >> Daniel A. Morgan
> >> University of Washington
> >> damor..._at_x.washington.edu
> >> (replace x with u to respond)
> >> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org-Hide quoted text -

>

> >> - Show quoted text -

>


> > Actually it should not be updated, this was a comparison of 2 older

> > products that was valid at the time(despite your comments), just

> > becauseSQL Serverhas shipped 2 full versions since then and Oracle

> > has shipped 3 full (and several r2/r3 type releases) since then does
> > not change that paper.

>


> > What is wrong in this case is that this reference is the one that

> > people hit when they search MSDN and its not clear how old the article

> > is. I've sent mail to some folks to see if they can get the 10g vs

> > SQL2005 paper that exists and the 5 daySQL Serverfor Oracle DBAs
> > class, to appear more prominently in the search lists.

>

> What is wrong is that the document was NEVER correct. Ever!

>

> Leaving it on the web just means more people read it which is the intent.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damor..._at_x.washington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)
> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sigh.

Its not the intent, why would it be? Having a doc that compared SQL Server 2005 and Oracle 7 would look much better, why not replace it with that if there was something evil going on here?

Its there as a historical reference, nothing more Daniel, you can't buy SQL 7 any more, you can't get fullfillment for it and mainline support has ceased, what possible product/sales benefit is there for having this up there?

Pause and think before you send the next salvo at your foot. Received on Sun May 27 2007 - 21:40:19 CDT