Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle versus MS Sql Server

Re: Oracle versus MS Sql Server

From: Nuno Souto <nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:53:35 GMT
Message-ID: <3bd982aa.4694678@news>


In a valiant and sublime effort,Serge Rielau frowned, dipped a thumb in soot and doodled:

>Isn't it a good goal to make reading the manual or the newsgroup as
>unnecessary as possible?

Not really. We have to remember that databases dealing with the ENTIRE data contents of a major company MUST not be treated the same way as the typical M$ installation: "if all else fails, re-format the disk and re-install".

That works fine for small, desktop systems or departmental file servers. The user is tipically someone who couldn't give a damn about the technical issues, and so it should be.

But when it comes to dealing with data that is for all intents and purposes the lifeblood of an organisation, I for one do NOT want a person incapable of reading a manual being responsible for it! Recipe for a BIG disaster.

>I think the goal is (and vendors including
>Oracle and Microsoft and IBM are working on it) to make the DBMS as easy
>to operate as childs play.

Why? Are they willing to let a child control their data? I think not. Why steer others to do it, then?

>I am willing to grant MS that they embraced the need for this long
>before other vendors because they come from the low end, small
>businesses.

Absolutely. But unless we take down-sizing to its ultimate consequences, we have to admit there IS a difference between a large organization and a small business.

That difference is the amount and complexity of the data it has to deal with daily for its proper operation and survivability. Last thing I want in this case is a child's mind being responsible for it.

Note, when I say "child" I mean in the context of knowledge of subject.

Let's face it: would you like to see a non-technical, non-specialist person in charge of operating a "nukular" reactor? Of course not.

Are we to assume that given a sufficiently simple interface, any child could be a CEO of a large company? Of course not!

Why should that be the case then for the person(s) responsible for the entire knowledge base of the organisation?

We are not talking about "armies" of people taking HUGE amounts of resources anyway: most IT departments nowadays are small to medium size, representing a minor overhead. And the database part of these is minimal in the vast majority of cases.

In fact, in most large companies you will find the accounting department constitues a much larger overhead than the IT department. And yet, here we are addressing the "overhead" of the smaller problem?

>The big guys Oracle and IBM better learn the lesson.
>

Agreed, but only in the desktop environment.

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam Received on Fri Oct 26 2001 - 10:53:35 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US