"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas_at_acm.org> wrote in message
news:1127317936.991514.275540_at_g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> PJ6 wrote:
>> I spent years developing with SQL Server, now I'm learning Oracle. It's
>> like
>> twice as expensive, seems to me a lot harder to maintain. I never ran
>> into
>> something I couldn't do in MS SQL - why exactly would anyone go through
>> the
>> extra expense and hassle of using Oracle instead? I'm not asking to get
>> anyone mad - I'd just like to know a bit more about how Oracle is
>> different
>> (and supposedly better) to make my transition make a little more sense.
>>
>> TIA,
>> Paul
>
- MS SQL Server does not run on UNIX or Linux, and that is big problem for
many companies and many applications.
- Oracle has a huge market share. Once that happens, people choose the
RDBMS based on their own career prospects more often than on the technical
merits of the RDBMS. If every employee had guaranteed lifetime employment
(with reasonable raises each year) then Oracle would loose market share
rapidly.
- Oracle is making a big effort to make their product easier to use, but
they still have a ways to go.
Received on Wed Sep 21 2005 - 11:02:40 CDT
