Re: Why is Oracle unaffordable?
- From: John Piwowar <jpiwowar@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "michaeljmoore@xxxxxxxxx" <michaeljmoore@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:25:41 -0800
That can't be the whole story. After all, who *ever* feels like they have
"enough" money? ;-)
Regards,
John P.
Sent from a mobile device to deliver a more rapid response. Please excuse
brevity and typos.
On 2010-11-08, at 11:53 AM, Michael Moore <michaeljmoore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Oracle is unaffordable because you don't have enough money.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Josh Collier <Josh.Collier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> Sql*server is "nice", but it doesn't have a lot of the fault tolerance and
> features of Oracle.
>
>
>
>
>
> Can you expand on this idea? what fault tolerant features distinguish the two?
>
>
>
> From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Goulet, Richard
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 6:51 AM
> To: RP Khare; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Subject: RE: Why is Oracle unaffordable?
>
>
> Rohit,
>
>
>
> It has been used for that purpose too, matter of fact I don't think that
> any current db hasn't been tried as an embedded db at one time or the other.
> Some worked well in a particular application some didn't. Depends on your
> definition of "works well". Personally I would not use Oracle as an embedded
> DB.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, what Oracle costs has been debated for a number of
> years. Oracle XE is the latest response to that complaint and I think it is
> very well received in the market place, like Microsoft SQL*Server CE. As for
> having a "high paid" dba around to maintain Oracle, you might get away
> without having one, but you should have someone you can call on when Murphy
> strikes. Seems we had a similar situation with a SQL*Server install on a
> "retired" desktop the other day, expanded the transaction log to the point
> where the available space on the disk drive was zero. As the boss says,
> anyone can run setup.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dick Goulet
> Senior Oracle DBA
>
>
>
>
>
> From: RP Khare [mailto:passionate_programmer@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 9:20 AM
> To: Goulet, Richard; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Why is Oracle unaffordable?
>
> Dick,
>
>
> What about BerkelyDB? I think it is meant to be an embedded DB?
>
>
> Subject: RE: Why is Oracle unaffordable?
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:14:09 -0500
> From: Richard.Goulet@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: passionate_programmer@xxxxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Rohit,
>
>
>
> There is an old saying that "one gets what one pays for". That goes for
> database software as well. Sql*server is "nice", but it doesn't have a lot
> of the fault tolerance and features of Oracle. MySql is a toy that got
> promoted to something it was never designed for. BerkelyDB is similar, it
> was designed for small projects, but then got promoted to larger things. DB2
> and Oracle are "similar" in robustness though feature sets are different as
> well as packaging. PostgreSql is somewhere between Oracle and SQL*Server,
> though a lot closer to Oracle.
>
>
>
> The bottom line is that a db is dependant on what you the developer want.
> If your looking for an imbedded DB, then I suggest you try a Google search,
> or possibly a visit to your local bookstore. I will agree that as an
> embedded db Oracle is a poor choice and there are a number of better ones out
> there, but many lack the recoverability, flexibility, and possibly ACID
> compliance of Oracle, but then maybe you don't need that. We have one
> application designed to reside on a laptop that uses the Java Based Apache
> Derby database which is open source. Fits nicely on a 8GB memory stick.
>
>
>
> Dick Goulet
> Senior Oracle DBA
>
>
>
>
>
> From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of RP Khare
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:31 AM
> To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Why is Oracle unaffordable?
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't want to initiate a religious war. I have been using MySQL since last
> two years in production environment. I used SQL Server Express and Oracle
> Express before. I have no complaints with either of the databases, except
> that Oracle is over expensive and the architecture is unnecessarily
> complicated. I want to know whether the complexity of the Oracle architecture
> and its ever demanding need for a dedicated DBA is worth paying or not. If
> you are an Oracle disciple, I don't want to hurt you and my views here are
> totally unbiased.
>
> I need an embedded database for a shrink-wrapped application. I looked around
> for the alternatives. I read about SQL Server CE, SQL Anywhere and BerkleyDB.
> I want to try BerkleyDB, but the prices are too high. You could afford and
> enterprise class IBM DB2 or Sybase Adaptive Server or SQL Server with a far
> lesser amount.
>
>
> Oracle is a good product but it is beyond the reach of customers other than
> big giants who pump in too much money just to keep those DBAs happy, who sit
> around that black dump command line screen. Why it can't be GUI and simple
> and affordable?
>
>
> ...............
> Rohit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
