Re: Top Databases Used

To name advantages of Oracle, by definition I need to be able to compare Oracle and e.g. Informix on a point by point basis. Only then can I start some qualitative assessments. Quantitative assessments would take much longer and maybe the TPC are better sources for info. on that (although I've heard that they're no longer giving so much weight to TPC-C). Now to make detailed comparisons between Oracle and any other database, I need to have an equally detailed / comprehensive knowledge of both, no? Much as I would like to I can't commit the time at the moment to detailed study of Informix. Thus any comparisons would be pretty impossible, thus judgements as to advantages would be equally inopportune. But after all, I don't get paid to know both servers to the same great level of detail though, and who would pay me (or anyone else for that matter)? Thus economics for the moment is stopping meaningful comparisons being made. Granted, not all Oracle Implementers may be good at their job; and yes I agree that its bound to happen that people try and use it without proper training. Why not critique the company installing the database (the one that needed the cron jobs, then)? Its hardly fair blaming the designers of the product if its used in an incorrect manner! The Manuals may be very large, but for every single Error code which you will ever see, there is not only a paragraph describing the likely causes of the error, but also in almost all cases you are given succinct, accurate and focussed advice as to how to solve this particualar problem. This demonstrates to me an almost obscene amount of time and money has been spent by Oracle just on compiling the Error Number reference guide. (not an immediate revenue generating activity you might reasonably think ;-) ). Taking a king of 'who do you trust?' approach - I have always tried to see how the RDBMS Vendor deals with the actual implementers of its products. Oracle has clearly demonstrated a desire to help both in producing very detailed documentation; publishing it as HTML or PDF (you choose); and distributing it in its entirety absolutely free with each server release. Given the uselessness of Oracle without the documenation, they could easily have charged extra for it and made a fortune. This tells me (in a very non-scientific way of course) that somewhere deep-down within the corporate 'soul' of Oracle, there is a desire to see their RDBMS customers succeed. I have always tried to get an idea of this aspect of the [RDBMS Vendor - Customer] relationship. If you thing the vendor is trustworthy, then its worth studying their product in more depth because there's a good chance that the product will a) do what is expected of it and b) future developments will continue to be made to it. A good example of this [RDBMS Vendor - Customer] dynamic was when Microsoft when they were about to roll out SQL Server 7.0. You could download a 'help' file which would give a good introduction to the product (this was the only documentation available at the time). So after a fairly long download, on opening the file it said that to read it you had to have Internet Explorer 4.x since it was in a 'Compiled Help File format'. A clear example of MS's intransigence over what file formats people HAD to use and thus be intended coercion, which SOFTWARE they had to install and run (and by implication also which OS they had to run). Needless to say, this spoke volumes about MS's true intentions to their customers. Now I like a challenge, and am willing to commit a small amount of time to trying to adjudge Oracle as compared to Informix. But the best way for me to do this is to look at the 'corporate soul' of Informix first. I expect this is the most efficient way of getting any idea at all as to the merits of Informix. Then it should be easier to come up with a prediciton as to how imporant each server platfrom is likely to be to the future. AS soon as I have any perceptions which I think are valid about how Informix handles the [RDBMS Vendor - Customer] dynamic, I'll let the newsgroup know, DNP.

DNP wrote: > > > Now to make detailed comparisons between Oracle and any other database, > I need to have an equally detailed / comprehensive knowledge of both, > no? > > Much as I would like to I can't commit the time at the moment to > detailed study of Informix. > > Thus any comparisons would be pretty impossible, thus judgements as to > advantages would be equally inopportune. > > But after all, I don't get paid to know both servers to the same great > level of detail though, and who would pay me (or anyone else for that > matter)? > WELL NOW !!! if you do not get paid to know both servers than maybe you should not be over in this newsgroup slamming/flaming Informix and its users... .I currently work Oracle/Informix and sql server databases (and have used DB2/Sybase in the past) and if you do not know about one type of server (informix) then you should keep your ill-advised opinions to yourself Yes I would have to say that Oracle has some pros depending on your app but Informix has really improved its engine and it is just as good in the basic areas and it even has some extra that work versus the extras that have bugs in it from Oracle and I would even have to go as far to say the even Sql Server has a few niceties that are easier to use then both oracle and informix

In article <391AFEC0.5F21@btinternet.com>, DNP <High.Flight@btinternet.com> writes > >AS soon as I have any perceptions which I think are valid about how >Informix handles the >[RDBMS Vendor - Customer] dynamic, I'll let the newsgroup know, > > www.informix.com/answers www.informix.com on the Contact Us Search Corporate Solutions Products Services Partners - Choose Services -> Techinfo Centre - then Member Login (which since the Y2K rollover has NOT required a password!) - then choose "Product Support Information" from the left side of the screen. - of the left side of the screen you can now choose - Technical Alerts (list of any serious bugs + fixes/workarounds) - Product Defect Query (all known bugs, which versions they affect, which versions contain fixes, known workarounds). .... what does Oracle have which does NOT require a login?? Hmmm, Informix opened up their Web Site and gives you all the manual, bugs + fixes. Access with NO support contract (handy for contractors), + all the manuals + release notes online! > >DNP. -- David Williams

On Thu, 11 May 2000 19:41:04 +0100 DNP wrote: > To name advantages of Oracle, by definition I need to be able to compare > Oracle and e.g. Informix on a point by point basis. Only then can I > start some qualitative assessments. Quantitative assessments would take > much longer and maybe the TPC are better sources for info. on that > (although I've heard that they're no longer giving so much weight to > TPC-C). > > > Now to make detailed comparisons between Oracle and any other database, > I need to have an equally detailed / comprehensive knowledge of both, > no? > It is moot whether you have 'detailed /comprehensive knowledge' of either. > Much as I would like to I can't commit the time at the moment to > detailed study of Informix. > > Thus any comparisons would be pretty impossible, thus judgements as to > advantages would be equally inopportune. > So all your pathetic trolling here is simply misinformed and misguided advocacy ? It is noted that even when people who do know both Oracle and Informix have pointed out Informix' strenghths in relation to Oracle you have chosen not to address them but simply to continue with your inflammatory blather. Your childish crowing in comp.databases.oracle about your trolling activity here is also noted, as is the fact that the majority of your posts there are simply preaching to the choir over advocacy matters. This of course begs the question : if Oracle is so decidedly successful and technically superior why does it need this kind of advocacy ? Unless of course the advocate holds some kind of brief for Oracle, like being an Oracle employee for instance. > But after all, I don't get paid to know both servers to the same great > level of detail though, and who would pay me (or anyone else for that > matter)? > If I was being inflammatory I might say that I am surprised that you get paid to do anything at all, let alone look after somebodies database. However there are plenty of people who work with multiple RDBMS and for whose employers this multiplicity of knowledge is a prerequisite. Just because you dont (or cant) it doesnt mean it applies to everyone else. > Thus economics for the moment is stopping meaningful comparisons being > made. Bollocks. Your lack of knowledge is - and quite honestly I would be sceptical of any 'meaningful comparison' presented by someone like yourself anyway. Bye Bye Now *plonk* /J\\ -- Pftt... Rules. I'm a rocker, I don't care for rules. -- fortune oscar homer

WOW. That was a well reasoned, serious, and courteous posting. I congratulate you without sarcasm or malice. Well done. OK, we will wait patiently for any personal evaluation you have time to make. We know the conclusions we have come to over the years and leave you free to make your own. If nothing else this polylogue (oo a new word?) may have opened your mind a bit and forced us to look again at what we think we know. Can we all end this thread now? Thanks. Art S. Kagel DNP wrote: > To name advantages of Oracle, by definition I need to be able to compare > Oracle and e.g. Informix on a point by point basis. Only then can I > start some qualitative assessments. Quantitative assessments would take > much longer and maybe the TPC are better sources for info. on that > (although I've heard that they're no longer giving so much weight to > TPC-C). > > Now to make detailed comparisons between Oracle and any other database, > I need to have an equally detailed / comprehensive knowledge of both, > no? > > Much as I would like to I can't commit the time at the moment to > detailed study of Informix. > > Thus any comparisons would be pretty impossible, thus judgements as to > advantages would be equally inopportune. > > But after all, I don't get paid to know both servers to the same great > level of detail though, and who would pay me (or anyone else for that > matter)? > > Thus economics for the moment is stopping meaningful comparisons being > made. > > Granted, not all Oracle Implementers may be good at their job; and yes I > agree that its bound to happen that people try and use it without proper > training. > > Why not critique the company installing the database (the one that > needed the cron jobs, then)? > > Its hardly fair blaming the designers of the product if its used in an > incorrect manner! > > The Manuals may be very large, but for every single Error code which you > will ever see, there is not only a paragraph describing the likely > causes of the error, but also in almost all cases you are given > succinct, accurate and focussed advice as to how to solve this > particualar problem. > > This demonstrates to me an almost obscene amount of time and money has > been spent by Oracle just on compiling the Error Number reference guide. > (not an immediate revenue generating activity you might reasonably think > ;-) ). > > Taking a king of 'who do you trust?' approach - I have always tried to > see how the RDBMS Vendor deals with the actual implementers of its > products. > > Oracle has clearly demonstrated a desire to help both in producing very > detailed documentation; publishing it as HTML or PDF (you choose); and > distributing it in its entirety absolutely free with each server > release. > > Given the uselessness of Oracle without the documenation, they could > easily have charged extra for it and made a fortune. > > This tells me (in a very non-scientific way of course) that somewhere > deep-down within the corporate 'soul' of Oracle, there is a desire to > see their RDBMS customers succeed. > > I have always tried to get an idea of this aspect of the [RDBMS Vendor - > Customer] relationship. If you thing the vendor is trustworthy, then its > worth studying their product in more depth because there's a good chance > that the product will a) do what is expected of it and b) future > developments will continue to be made to it. > > A good example of this [RDBMS Vendor - Customer] dynamic was when > Microsoft when they were about to roll out SQL Server 7.0. > > You could download a 'help' file which would give a good introduction to > the product (this was the only documentation available at the time). > > So after a fairly long download, on opening the file it said that to > read it you had to have Internet Explorer 4.x since it was in a > 'Compiled Help File format'. > > A clear example of MS's intransigence over what file formats people HAD > to use and thus be intended coercion, which SOFTWARE they had to install > and run (and by implication also which OS they had to run). > > Needless to say, this spoke volumes about MS's true intentions to their > customers. > > Now I like a challenge, and am willing to commit a small amount of time > to trying to adjudge Oracle as compared to Informix. But the best way > for me to do this is to look at the 'corporate soul' of Informix first. > > I expect this is the most efficient way of getting any idea at all as to > the merits of Informix. Then it should be easier to come up with a > prediciton as to how imporant each server platfrom is likely to be to > the future. > > AS soon as I have any perceptions which I think are valid about how > Informix handles the > [RDBMS Vendor - Customer] dynamic, I'll let the newsgroup know, > > DNP.

I'm all for ending the nastiness too. Even if it is all in fun, bashing is never nice. Once I do actually begin to understand a little more about Informix, I'll maybe I'll show my face again with "hey, this is cool about Informix" and "Wish Informix could do this as well as Oracle comments" (which I expect to get trashed on :-)). "Art S. Kagel" wrote: > WOW. That was a well reasoned, serious, and courteous posting. I > congratulate you without sarcasm or malice. Well done. OK, we will wait > patiently for any personal evaluation you have time to make. We know the > conclusions we have come to over the years and leave you free to make your > own. If nothing else this polylogue (oo a new word?) may have opened your > mind a bit and forced us to look again at what we think we know. > > Can we all end this thread now? Thanks. > > Art S. Kagel > > DNP wrote: > > > To name advantages of Oracle, by definition I need to be able to compare > > Oracle and e.g. Informix on a point by point basis. Only then can I > > start some qualitative assessments. Quantitative assessments would take > > much longer and maybe the TPC are better sources for info. on that > > (although I've heard that they're no longer giving so much weight to > > TPC-C). > > > > Now to make detailed comparisons between Oracle and any other database, > > I need to have an equally detailed / comprehensive knowledge of both, > > no? > > > > Much as I would like to I can't commit the time at the moment to > > detailed study of Informix. > > > > Thus any comparisons would be pretty impossible, thus judgements as to > > advantages would be equally inopportune. > > > > But after all, I don't get paid to know both servers to the same great > > level of detail though, and who would pay me (or anyone else for that > > matter)? > > > > Thus economics for the moment is stopping meaningful comparisons being > > made. > > > > Granted, not all Oracle Implementers may be good at their job; and yes I > > agree that its bound to happen that people try and use it without proper > > training. > > > > Why not critique the company installing the database (the one that > > needed the cron jobs, then)? > > > > Its hardly fair blaming the designers of the product if its used in an > > incorrect manner! > > > > The Manuals may be very large, but for every single Error code which you > > will ever see, there is not only a paragraph describing the likely > > causes of the error, but also in almost all cases you are given > > succinct, accurate and focussed advice as to how to solve this > > particualar problem. > > > > This demonstrates to me an almost obscene amount of time and money has > > been spent by Oracle just on compiling the Error Number reference guide. > > (not an immediate revenue generating activity you might reasonably think > > ;-) ). > > > > Taking a king of 'who do you trust?' approach - I have always tried to > > see how the RDBMS Vendor deals with the actual implementers of its > > products. > > > > Oracle has clearly demonstrated a desire to help both in producing very > > detailed documentation; publishing it as HTML or PDF (you choose); and > > distributing it in its entirety absolutely free with each server > > release. > > > > Given the uselessness of Oracle without the documenation, they could > > easily have charged extra for it and made a fortune. > > > > This tells me (in a very non-scientific way of course) that somewhere > > deep-down within the corporate 'soul' of Oracle, there is a desire to > > see their RDBMS customers succeed. > > > > I have always tried to get an idea of this aspect of the [RDBMS Vendor - > > Customer] relationship. If you thing the vendor is trustworthy, then its > > worth studying their product in more depth because there's a good chance > > that the product will a) do what is expected of it and b) future > > developments will continue to be made to it. > > > > A good example of this [RDBMS Vendor - Customer] dynamic was when > > Microsoft when they were about to roll out SQL Server 7.0. > > > > You could download a 'help' file which would give a good introduction to > > the product (this was the only documentation available at the time). > > > > So after a fairly long download, on opening the file it said that to > > read it you had to have Internet Explorer 4.x since it was in a > > 'Compiled Help File format'. > > > > A clear example of MS's intransigence over what file formats people HAD > > to use and thus be intended coercion, which SOFTWARE they had to install > > and run (and by implication also which OS they had to run). > > > > Needless to say, this spoke volumes about MS's true intentions to their > > customers. > > > > Now I like a challenge, and am willing to commit a small amount of time > > to trying to adjudge Oracle as compared to Informix. But the best way > > for me to do this is to look at the 'corporate soul' of Informix first. > > > > I expect this is the most efficient way of getting any idea at all as to > > the merits of Informix. Then it should be easier to come up with a > > prediciton as to how imporant each server platfrom is likely to be to > > the future. > > > > AS soon as I have any perceptions which I think are valid about how > > Informix handles the > > [RDBMS Vendor - Customer] dynamic, I'll let the newsgroup know, > > > > DNP.