Re: database market share 2003

Take a few deep breaths of air, and try to calm down, you write like you're hyper-ventalating.

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:73e20c6c.0406160310.7838aff7_at_posting.google.com...
> "Data Goob" <datagoob_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ZePzc.42273$QR2.4066_at_fe44.usenetserver.com>...
>
> > other database products are easy enough to use that they really don't
> > require much training, if any, of any kind, formal or informal. In fact,
>
> Are they? Let me see: they don't need SQL, is it?
> Ah yes: put me in front of a DB2 or sql server database and I'll
> show you how difficult it is to manage or use.
>

Sorry if I insult you right off the bat, but geez, your statement is so blatantly wrong. I'm not sure what database products you've actually had experience with, but it appears you haven't even used anything but one.

> > training appears to be more of a necessity for Oracles' complex product
>
> No it isn't. However, if you are an idiot developer who has
> only so far used Access or some other sub-standard product
> with pretentions to be a database, I suggest you take some serious
> training instead of stuffing up systems for your clients.
>

"Idiot developer" ? Geez you must be in a really bad situation to demean people so much.

Actually, the necessity for training is a lot like the need for a help desk for your software. If the software is built correctly, the user-interface and online help should deter the need for a lot of 'training' or help-desk support. If your help desk is inundated with a lot of calls, what does that say about your software? If you need a lot of training, what does that say about the design of the interface?

To the credit of Microsoft, they have a pretty darn good database for the mid-range market, especially for SMB's that can't afford a DBA. SQL-Server is very robust, takes a lot of abuse, and is pretty good with a lot of different applications. It can literally run for years without much attendance by anyone knowing what they are doing with it--this comes from my own personal use of the product in our environment and we have done a lot with it. It's not my favorite, but certainly it's not difficult to use or abuse, and has rarely if ever failed us. Failures were always user problems.

> > Oracle is about making money more than anything,
>
> And IBM and M$ aren't? BWAHAHAHAHA!
>

Well, we've found that the more of a megalomaniac running the company, the less the quality of the product. Oracle's culture is of particular note in that the whole company culture centers around sales, not product quality. Oracle is living off of a database that hasn't been re-engineered in what, 10 years? SQL-Server hasn't been upgraded in at least 5 years, but it is a better product for a lot of reasons--especially good that it is at least a lot more like other products. Oracle is vastly different from the rest. SQL-Server also is making inroads from the SMB up, and is not trivial in terms of how serious businesses take it.

> > but that doesn't make them better
> > than the others--which I think is the point you and Mark want to make
> > on a regular basis.
>
> No. The point they make is that there is NO product that
> is better than others. As much as this may surprise
> the MS and IBM heads.
>

Well, it appears to me that you have not used anything but one product ( and I'm not sure which one that is ) .

> >
> > SQL-Server installs in about 10 minutes, same for the others.
>
> So does Oracle. And SQL Server does NOT install in 10 minutes,
> that is a common marketing claim from M$ bullshit artists.

Uh, well, I just installed it last week on one of our systems, 10 minutes tops. Of course on a slower system it might take a little longer, but geez, a child could install SQL-Server, it's not that difficult.

> It took 45 minutes to install on my P4-2GHz IBM PC box at work.
> Longer than Oracle 9ir2, if you must know. Or UDB 8.
>

Oracle 9i was a pretty immature product the last time I screwed around with it, I had to create a lot of scripts to manage it, and its software footprint was over 5 GB of god only knows what. It was also in a non-windows environment, so YMMV. The licensing costs were also prohibitive as well.

> > not all RDBMS products function in an operational mode without the
> > need for anyone trained or untrained to maintain them--except maybe according
> > to you Oracle needs training, and what does that really say about the
> > product that it needs so much hand-holding?
>
> Want me to show you some sites that converted to M$ crap
> because "it needed no maintenance" and ended up off the air
> for weeks on end after TWO (2) days of operation in the new
> plastic-fantastic M$ crap?
>

Heh-heh. Intelligence could be a factor.

> > is the only product worth considering. You also try to suggest that Oracle
> > is somehow more legitimate for having 'college classes' as if academic
> > standing is important.
>
> Given that it is the ONLY commercial RDBMS out there that follows
> most of the relational db 12 rules, it probably deserves to be better
> represented in education institutions. Ah, yes: and its interface
> has stayed the same for the last 15 years and it runs the same
> across all platforms. Can M$-crap claim the same?
>

Wow, well, you can't argue with that. It's interesting that you would want to compare Oracle, quoting "its interface has stayed the same for the last 15 years", with other products that have advanced their engines, tools, and interfaces several times over in the same time period. Interesting.

> > An Oracle Fellow, that would be hilarious.
>
> No more than a MCSE...

Can't argue with that. Received on Wed Jun 16 2004 - 07:00:22 CDT