|
Posted by DA Morgan on 09/14/05 20:24
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> Also given that SQL 2005 has several design changes that specifically are
> aimed at it "taking on Oracle" (like changes to transaction concurrency) I'd
> go with SQL 2005.
In short ... after complaining bitterly for years about how wrong
Oracle's architecture is ... they've copied it. Flattery perhaps but
where is the apology for all of the criticism's heaped on Oracle for
so many years?
So much for innovation in Redmond. Why invent when you can copy.
But then why would anyone want these features in a version 1.0 product
when they could have them fully tested in a version 10? Go figure.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|