Article about supposed "murky" future for Oracle

[Ron]

I found an interesting article by Karen Southwick about Oracle's
supposed "murky" (in her own words) future. Can someone counter her
arguments.

http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5072299.html

Should I select Oracle or should I go with

PostgreSQL.com (free and in my opinion, extremely reliable), MYSQL, MS
SQL Server or DB2?

Thanks!

[Charlie Edwards]

Ron <fdf@dmb.no> wrote in message news:<1064ungbvq55jd0@news.supernews.com>... I found an interesting article by Karen Southwick about Oracle's supposed "murky" (in her own words) future. Can someone counter her arguments. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5072299.html Should I select Oracle or should I go with PostgreSQL.com (free and in my opinion, extremely reliable), MYSQL, MS SQL Server or DB2? Thanks!

I think Karen Southwick may be more interested in pushing her
biography of Larry, "Everyone Else Must Fail".

This (quite old) article seems irrelevant in terms of choosing which
database to go for. I don't think Oracle's going anywhere, though I
wouldn't buy any shares right now.

As to your question, well it depends completely on what it is you want
to do with your database, how much money you have, what other
limitations you have (e.g. platform) etc etc.

CE

[Guest]

Ron <fdf@dmb.no> wrote in message news:<1064ungbvq55jd0@news.supernews.com>... I found an interesting article by Karen Southwick about Oracle's supposed "murky" (in her own words) future. Can someone counter her arguments. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5072299.html Should I select Oracle or should I go with PostgreSQL.com (free and in my opinion, extremely reliable), MYSQL, MS SQL Server or DB2? Thanks!

The article is full of value judgments, that would best to be appear
in a true gossip magazine. As far as I am concerned the author didn't
do anything to substantiate her claim other than putting down some
slander.
The strange thing about this, you seem to consider the article as a
sound basis to select a different database. I wouldn't make such a
decision based on such an article. Nor would I trade in professional
and mature software for a different database product simply because it
is free. None of these products you mention come anywhere near the
feature set of Oracle. But if you consider the low price as a feature,
why don't you go ahead and 'buy' one of the toys you mention?

Sybrand Bakker
Senior OracleDBA

[Greg Forestieri]

Ron <fdf@dmb.no> wrote in message news:<1064ungbvq55jd0@news.supernews.com>... I found an interesting article by Karen Southwick about Oracle's supposed "murky" (in her own words) future. Can someone counter her arguments. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5072299.html Should I select Oracle or should I go with PostgreSQL.com (free and in my opinion, extremely reliable), MYSQL, MS SQL Server or DB2? Thanks!

It's a bit early to let someone guessing about the future determine
which product to purchase. Let's just say at very least you have to
strongly consider Oracle. In many situations it is the no-brainer
choice.

[Mark D Powell]

Ron <fdf@dmb.no> wrote in message news:<1064ungbvq55jd0@news.supernews.com>... I found an interesting article by Karen Southwick about Oracle's supposed "murky" (in her own words) future. Can someone counter her arguments. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5072299.html Should I select Oracle or should I go with PostgreSQL.com (free and in my opinion, extremely reliable), MYSQL, MS SQL Server or DB2? Thanks!

The article is old, Larry has already relinquished the helm.

It is true Oracle has its fair share of troubles, yet another new
release of the database jamed full of features that the competition
will have to copy is on the market. Oracle Applications continues to
hold its own in its market. I would rather that Justice kill the
PeopleSoft bid rather than see Oracle overpay for the acquisition.

All in all the future is always murky. If it does not appear so it is
because you have not accounted for the constantly shifting nature of
the future. If you must predict the future predict often.

HTH -- Mark D Powell --

[Brian Peasland]

"there will be no new architecture for computing for the next 1,000
years,"

And yet Oracle is now pushing Grid computing.

Anyone who really thinks that the above statement is true obviously has
not spent much time in the IT industry. Products that are 3 years old
are "ancient" and antiquated.

I agree with others that this article should not be a factor in your
decision on your RDMBS platform. You decision should be based on two
things....your technical requirements and the cost/benefit to your
business. Which RDBMS systems meet your technical requirements? Which
RDBMS gives you the most bang for your buck? If you do your homework,
then you might find Oracle comes out on top with their latest 10g
pricing structure. Or it might not (it's hard to beat free software, but
then you get what you pay for).

Cheers,
Brian


--
===================================================================

Brian Peasland
dba@remove_spam.peasland.com

Remove the "remove_spam." from the email address to email me.


"I can give it to you cheap, quick, and good. Now pick two out of
the three"

[Hans Forbrich]

Ron wrote:
I found an interesting article by Karen Southwick about Oracle's supposed "murky" (in her own words) future. Can someone counter her arguments. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5072299.html Should I select Oracle or should I go with PostgreSQL.com (free and in my opinion, extremely reliable), MYSQL, MS SQL Server or DB2? Thanks!

This sounds quite troll-ish. Since you already have an opinion, then our
discussion will likely not sway your opinion, no matter how many strong
arguments we bring to the table.

/Hans

[Malcolm Dew-Jones]

Ron (fdf@dmb.no) wrote:
: I found an interesting article by Karen Southwick about Oracle's
: supposed "murky" (in her own words) future. Can someone counter her
: arguments.

: http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5072299.html

: Should I select Oracle or should I go with

: PostgreSQL.com (free and in my opinion, extremely reliable), MYSQL, MS
: SQL Server or DB2?

They're all very good for the things they do well.

[Database Guy]

sybrandb@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<a1d154f4.0403250419.48e16cce@posting.google.com>... Ron <fdf@dmb.no> wrote in message news:<1064ungbvq55jd0@news.supernews.com>... I found an interesting article by Karen Southwick about Oracle's supposed "murky" (in her own words) future. Can someone counter her arguments. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5072299.html Should I select Oracle or should I go with PostgreSQL.com (free and in my opinion, extremely reliable), MYSQL, MS SQL Server or DB2? Thanks! None of these products you mention come anywhere near the feature set of Oracle.

Not true - DB2 certainly does, for one. Probably as many bugs too.
why don't you go ahead and 'buy' one of the toys you mention?

This is pure prejudice. PostgreSQL may lack the scalability of
DB2/Oracle but is a stable and mature product; while even SQL Server
is rather more than a "toy" these days. You talk of slander yet seem
to be second to none in the bias department.


DG

[Daniel Morgan]

Ron wrote: I found an interesting article by Karen Southwick about Oracle's supposed "murky" (in her own words) future. Can someone counter her arguments. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5072299.html Should I select Oracle or should I go with PostgreSQL.com (free and in my opinion, extremely reliable), MYSQL, MS SQL Server or DB2? Thanks!

Irrelevant nonsense crossposted to multiple usenet groups for the
sole purpose of being a troll.

Not one of the list of products is capable of something as basic
to Oracle as partitioning. I'd like to see the day when 1.5 peta
is loaded into any of them: Oracle currently supports two such
databases.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Daniel Morgan]

Database Guy wrote:
sybrandb@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<a1d154f4.0403250419.48e16cce@posting.google.com>...Ron <fdf@dmb.no> wrote in message news:<1064ungbvq55jd0@news.supernews.com>...I found an interesting article by Karen Southwick about Oracle'ssupposed "murky" (in her own words) future. Can someone counter herarguments.http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5072299.htmlShould I select Oracle or should I go withPostgreSQL.com (free and in my opinion, extremely reliable), MYSQL, MSSQL Server or DB2?Thanks!None of these products you mention come anywhere near thefeature set of Oracle. Not true - DB2 certainly does, for one. Probably as many bugs too.why don't you go ahead and 'buy' one of the toys you mention? This is pure prejudice. PostgreSQL may lack the scalability of DB2/Oracle but is a stable and mature product; while even SQL Server is rather more than a "toy" these days. You talk of slander yet seem to be second to none in the bias department. DG

And the largest PostreSQL implementation on the planet is?
Drum roll please.

And the number of minutes it would take any serious hacker to
compromise the product is?
Drum roll please.

Give the trolling a break.
--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[JEDIDIAH]

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.databases.oracle.server.]
On 2004-03-26, Database Guy <dbguy101@hotmail.com> wrote: sybrandb@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<a1d154f4.0403250419.48e16cce@posting.google.com>... Ron <fdf@dmb.no> wrote in message news:<1064ungbvq55jd0@news.supernews.com>... I found an interesting article by Karen Southwick about Oracle's supposed "murky" (in her own words) future. Can someone counter her arguments. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5072299.html Should I select Oracle or should I go with PostgreSQL.com (free and in my opinion, extremely reliable), MYSQL, MS SQL Server or DB2? Thanks! None of these products you mention come anywhere near the feature set of Oracle. Not true - DB2 certainly does, for one. Probably as many bugs too. why don't you go ahead and 'buy' one of the toys you mention? This is pure prejudice. PostgreSQL may lack the scalability of DB2/Oracle but is a stable and mature product; while even SQL Server

The lack of replication, clustering, hot backups & point in time
recovery make Postgres a toy. It's simply not robust enough for
critical deployments.
is rather more than a "toy" these days. You talk of slander yet seem to be second to none in the bias department.

Postgres is suitable if your data is completely disposable.


--
The public has a right to free music. It's part of the bargain that
was originally made with musicians and publishers. It's time that the |||
debate was shifted to reflect that. Robber Barons and their Toadies / | \
are distracting us from the original facts of the situation.