|
|
Posted by DA Morgan on 10/01/05 11:39
--CELKO-- wrote:
> Oracle is still a nightmare of non-conformance to ANSI/ISO, X/Open, etc
> Standards, as well as expensive and hard to use. It is a kind of
> "Hillbilly dialect" of SQL :)
Not to disparage standards but to be intellectually honest you should
acknolwedge that all SQL RDBMS's are non-conformant in one manner or
another. If they weren't they would have a product that was only
marginally capable of handling the real-world environment.
> Did you know that SQL has one and only one allowed date format?
> Apparently not. It is based on ISO-8601, a Standard used in many other
> ISO standards.
An good example of precisely what I meant by my statement above.
> as well as expensive and hard to use.
But please let me strongly dispute the above. How can you claim Oracle
as expensive when it provides functionality not available in SQL Server
for any price. Need RAC? No price will get it. Want on-line object
redefinition. No price will get it for you. Want humongous numbers of
other high-end capabilities. Better start writing them yourself in C#.
If all you need is tables and indexes then I'd suggest MySQL. I wouldn't
pay either Microsoft or Oracle a dime.
And hard to use? Maybe a decade ago. Fly on into Seattle and I'll get
you both the best scotch you've ever had and a good lesson on using
the Grid.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|