Oracle DBA to learn MS SQL: ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?

Thanks!By "useful" I take it you mean which has the best career prospects.

Both are leading, industry standard RDBMSs with good career opportunities.
Oracle is the acknowledged market leader. SQLServer is sometimes claimed to
have the fastest growing market share.

It's often said that Oracle database professionals earn more than their
SQLServer counterparts. Salary surveys and advertised opportunities (at
least the ones I see in the UK) tend to back this up, although obviously
salary levels are subject to many other factors as well.

The decision on which is most useful to you will depend on your
qualifications, experience, intended career and the opportunities available
in the area and industry in which you would like to work. Research job
opportunities in your areas of interest to help you decide. Unfortunately in
the IT industry the only constant is change - the market could look very
different in 2 years time and nobody can predict it with any degree of
certainty.

(off-topic cross-postings ignored)

--
David Portas
----
Please reply only to the newsgroup
--

"English Teacher" <EnglishTeacher@.ModernEnglish.com> wrote in message
news:b06436f6.0310202251.15eec0c@.posting.google.co m...
> Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
> Thanks!|||Hi

The choice of which database system to learn will to some extent be
determined on why you wish to learn it. In general there is a lot of
relational theory that is universal and writing good SQL and doing correct
design is not linked to the vendor of the database system. There will be
system specific features that will improve performance on a given RDBMS, but
the knowledge of how proprietary this is is important.

In general I think that SQL Server is the better system regarding ease of
setup and the hardware required to run the system and would therefore have
the edge, but if you are looking for multiplatform capabilities then Sybase,
DB2 or Oracle may be alternatives to consider.

John

>Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
>nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
>Thanks!
>
If the choice is strictly academic and you have no commercial purpose in
min it really doesn't matter
so just get the one that costs you the least. Not sure if you can get
SQL Server for free but Oracle
can be downloaded for free from oracle.com and the full commercial CD
package purchased from
http://store.oracle.com for $39.95 USD.

If you have a commercial intent then choose the product that best meets
that goal. If you are looking
for industrial strenght security, stability, ability to run on Linux or
UNIX etc. that might lead you in one
direction. Other choices might lead you elsewhere.

But why on earth do you think posting this to rec.woodworking is a good
use of the usenet? Please
do not cross-post to irrelevant groups. I have taken the liberty to
remove them from this thread so as
not to continue the misuse.

You like to read technical stuff & think & research & LEARN - go with Oracle

>> ,rec.woodworking,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equip ment.35mm

Ahh...forgettaboutit then ...do SQL Server...you'll definitely have more
time for these hobbies...

>If you want it EASY & quick - go with SQL Server
>You like to read technical stuff & think & research & LEARN - go with Oracle
>
>>>,rec.woodworking,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equip ment.35mm
>>>
>>>
>Ahh...forgettaboutit then ...do SQL Server...you'll definitely have more
>time for these hobbies...
>
>
>"English Teacher" <EnglishTeacher@.ModernEnglish.com> wrote in message
>news:b06436f6.0310202251.15eec0c@.posting.google.co m...
>
>>Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
>>nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>
I think one could make a reasoned argument that to do good work in SQL
Server also requires
a bit of heavy lifting. The fact that many don't bother to do it doesn't
mean that what they build
is anything other than mediocre.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/...oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/...aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@.x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)|||EnglishTeacher@.ModernEnglish.com (English Teacher) wrote in message news:<b06436f6.0310202251.15eec0c@.posting.google.com>...
> Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?

This poster is a well known troll. Reply at your own risk.|||"Noons" <wizofoz2k@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:73e20c6c.0310211331.5b22a4e4@.posting.google.c om...
> EnglishTeacher@.ModernEnglish.com (English Teacher) wrote in message
news:<b06436f6.0310202251.15eec0c@.posting.google.com>...
> > Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> > nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
>
> This poster is a well known troll. Reply at your own risk.

shhh|||Daniel Morgan (damorgan@.x.washington.edu) writes:
> Not sure if you can get SQL Server for free

Not completely, but there is a 120-day evaluation version available.
See item 6 on http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/topdownloads.asp.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||"Erland Sommarskog" <sommar@.algonet.se> wrote in message
news:Xns941C29886F12Yazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> Daniel Morgan (damorgan@.x.washington.edu) writes:
> > Not sure if you can get SQL Server for free
> Not completely, but there is a 120-day evaluation version available.
> See item 6 on http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/topdownloads.asp.

And the developer's edition is now fairly cheap as I recall.

>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se
> Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f94fba3$0$246$ed9e5944@.reading.news.pipex.net>...
> Hi
> The choice of which database system to learn will to some extent be
> determined on why you wish to learn it. In general there is a lot of
> relational theory that is universal and writing good SQL and doing correct
> design is not linked to the vendor of the database system. There will be
> system specific features that will improve performance on a given RDBMS, but
> the knowledge of how proprietary this is is important.
> In general I think that SQL Server is the better system regarding ease of
> setup and the hardware required to run the system and would therefore have

Actually when it comes to lowend hardware, Oracle and MSSQL are
more of an even heat. Both can be deployed on meagre hardware if your
thruput requirements are similarly meagre.
However, Oracle will probably scale much better should your needs
be more than trivial. Oracle runs on machines with as many as 105
cpus, Oracle has more transparent clustering, and MSSQL doesn't
support table/index partitioning.
Storage and memory requirements will be similar for both
products. You won't be able to get away with skimping on the disk
hardware just because it's a Microsoft database. OTOH, Oracle can run
on the same Dell/Compaq hardware that msSQL uses. Just run Linux
rather than Solaris.

> the edge, but if you are looking for multiplatform capabilities then Sybase,
> DB2 or Oracle may be alternatives to consider.
[deletia]|||Erland Sommarskog <sommar@.algonet.se> wrote in message news:<Xns941C29886F12Yazorman@.127.0.0.1>...
> Daniel Morgan (damorgan@.x.washington.edu) writes:
> > Not sure if you can get SQL Server for free
> Not completely, but there is a 120-day evaluation version available.
> See item 6 on http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/topdownloads.asp.

It is quite easy to get free copies of Oracle. They will be
unlicensed of course. However, you will be free to install
and run them. They are not cripple-ware. They are the full
installation packs. So you can use Oracle 9.2 EE for NT or
Linux without limitation (barring SBA audits).

It seems odd that it would be harder to try a Microsoft
product than an Oracle one.|||"Hulse" <hulse_kevin@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16926526.0310211823.7aaf98d@.posting.google.co m...
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3f94fba3$0$246$ed9e5944@.reading.news.pipex.net>...
> > Hi
> > The choice of which database system to learn will to some extent be
> > determined on why you wish to learn it. In general there is a lot of
> > relational theory that is universal and writing good SQL and doing
correct
> > design is not linked to the vendor of the database system. There will be
> > system specific features that will improve performance on a given RDBMS,
but
> > the knowledge of how proprietary this is is important.
> > In general I think that SQL Server is the better system regarding ease
of
> > setup and the hardware required to run the system and would therefore
have
> Actually when it comes to lowend hardware, Oracle and MSSQL are
> more of an even heat. Both can be deployed on meagre hardware if your
> thruput requirements are similarly meagre.
> However, Oracle will probably scale much better should your needs
> be more than trivial. Oracle runs on machines with as many as 105
> cpus, Oracle has more transparent clustering, and MSSQL doesn't
> support table/index partitioning.
> Storage and memory requirements will be similar for both
> products. You won't be able to get away with skimping on the disk
> hardware just because it's a Microsoft database. OTOH, Oracle can run
> on the same Dell/Compaq hardware that msSQL uses. Just run Linux
> rather than Solaris.
> > the edge, but if you are looking for multiplatform capabilities then
Sybase,
> > DB2 or Oracle may be alternatives to consider.
> [deletia]

shhh|||Erland Sommarskog wrote:

>Daniel Morgan (damorgan@.x.washington.edu) writes:
>
>>Not sure if you can get SQL Server for free
>>
>>
>Not completely, but there is a 120-day evaluation version available.
>See item 6 on http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/topdownloads.asp.
>
Good to know. The free Oracle download is full feature and licensed for
30 days ... but it does run forever.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/...oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/...aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@.x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)|||> Actually when it comes to lowend hardware, Oracle and MSSQL are
> more of an even heat. Both can be deployed on meagre hardware if your
> thruput requirements are similarly meagre.

I would disagree with that, although I have not done any benchmarks, my
experience of Oracle on the same windows platform is that SQL Server is that
SQL server is the more performant. When you start looking at the User tools
then Oracle with all the overhead and clunkiness of Java means that SQL
Server wins on productivity and reliability too.

I know there are good third party tools available that will level the score,
and IMO the need for these with Oracle is higher!

> However, Oracle will probably scale much better should your needs
> be more than trivial. Oracle runs on machines with as many as 105
> cpus, Oracle has more transparent clustering, and MSSQL doesn't
> support table/index partitioning.

Well this was way beyond the scope of poster!!

> Storage and memory requirements will be similar for both
> products. You won't be able to get away with skimping on the disk
> hardware just because it's a Microsoft database. OTOH, Oracle can run
> on the same Dell/Compaq hardware that msSQL uses. Just run Linux
> rather than Solaris.

Oracle on Linux would be a good choice. Whether the poster would want to
dual boot or buy another machine is different approach.

> > the edge, but if you are looking for multiplatform capabilities then
Sybase,
> > DB2 or Oracle may be alternatives to consider.
> [deletia]

John|||"Hulse" <hulse_kevin@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16926526.0310211828.1ac77033@.posting.google.c om...
> Erland Sommarskog <sommar@.algonet.se> wrote in message
news:<Xns941C29886F12Yazorman@.127.0.0.1>...
> > Daniel Morgan (damorgan@.x.washington.edu) writes:
> > > Not sure if you can get SQL Server for free
> > Not completely, but there is a 120-day evaluation version available.
> > See item 6 on http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/topdownloads.asp.
> It is quite easy to get free copies of Oracle. They will be
> unlicensed of course. However, you will be free to install
> and run them. They are not cripple-ware. They are the full
> installation packs. So you can use Oracle 9.2 EE for NT or
> Linux without limitation (barring SBA audits).

They are not unlicensed. You agree to a licence when you download them -
basically non-commercial use so it fits the OP requirements for which is
better to learn. Equally you cannot use them without restriction, the
restrictions are however reasonable.

As far as learning MSSQL goes, I think that I would go with MSDE on the
grounds that 120 days to learn a RDBMS is somewhat ambitious.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission Uk|||Comments in-line

John Bell wrote:

>> Actually when it comes to lowend hardware, Oracle and MSSQL are
>>more of an even heat. Both can be deployed on meagre hardware if your
>>thruput requirements are similarly meagre.
>>
>>
>I would disagree with that, although I have not done any benchmarks, my
>experience of Oracle on the same windows platform is that SQL Server is that
>SQL server is the more performant. When you start looking at the User tools
>then Oracle with all the overhead and clunkiness of Java means that SQL
>Server wins on productivity and reliability too.
>I know there are good third party tools available that will level the score,
>and IMO the need for these with Oracle is higher!
Your experience is purely anecdotal. Other people's experience may well
differ. But one thing is definite
and that is that I can put either SQL Server or Oracle on a single CPU
Pentium machine and both will
run. But while SQL Server will only run on the Windows operating system
with Oracle an organization
has the choice to avoid paying hundreds of dollars for the operating
system, they can choose Linux, and
also avoid all of the problems with the huge number of Windows only
virus, worm, and trojan attacks.

>> Storage and memory requirements will be similar for both
>>products. You won't be able to get away with skimping on the disk
>>hardware just because it's a Microsoft database. OTOH, Oracle can run
>>on the same Dell/Compaq hardware that msSQL uses. Just run Linux
>>rather than Solaris.
>>
>>
>Oracle on Linux would be a good choice. Whether the poster would want to
>dual boot or buy another machine is different approach.
For a server dual boot would be pretty foolish. Servers are not supposed
to be rebooted.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/...oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/...aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@.x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)|||Ok, Well Oracle is the granddaddy of them all.
But in a breakdown of the deals SQL server is better...
I have a very long paper that my Boss wrote that illustrated the
difference in speeds and costs, by far, SQL server blows away Oracle and
it is much easier to use. Oracle has to many module to do the tasks that
in SQL server are a speed fix. Try to go to do a quick adhoc query in
oracle 9I, Good luck. Also, I did purchase the evaluation copy of 9I it
was like $90 and this convinced me that SQL server was much better.
Beware, to uninstall the version of Oracle 9Iis very hard I have
uninstalled it over 10 times and it is still showing up as an agent in
my autoexec.bat I can not get rid of it. SQL server is unistallable ez

Will

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||Daniel Morgan wrote:

> Your experience is purely anecdotal. Other people's experience may
> well differ. But one thing is definite and that is that I can put
> either SQL Server or Oracle on a single CPU Pentium machine and both
> will run. But while SQL Server will only run on the Windows operating
> system with Oracle an organization has the choice to avoid paying
> hundreds of dollars for the operating system, they can choose Linux,
> and also avoid all of the problems with the huge number of Windows
> only virus, worm, and trojan attacks.

the ability exists, however at this point in time most companies do not
have the talent available to manage other than Windows servers unless
they are large enough to have Unix server farms. in that case they
already would have Oracle installed on a unix platform. smaller
companies would tend not to choose Oracle due to the lack of talent
mentionsed as well as the adversity to adding a DBA to staff.

--
Bill "Shrek" Thater ORACLE DBA
"I'm going to work my ticket if I can..." -- Gilwell song
william.thater@.carrier.utc.com
----------------------
A man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. He
sits on a hot stove for a minute, it's longer than any hour. That is
relativity. - Albert Einstein|||Bill shrek Thater wrote:

>Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
>>Your experience is purely anecdotal. Other people's experience may
>>well differ. But one thing is definite and that is that I can put
>>either SQL Server or Oracle on a single CPU Pentium machine and both
>>will run. But while SQL Server will only run on the Windows operating
>>system with Oracle an organization has the choice to avoid paying
>>hundreds of dollars for the operating system, they can choose Linux,
>>and also avoid all of the problems with the huge number of Windows
>>only virus, worm, and trojan attacks.
>>
>>
>the ability exists, however at this point in time most companies do not
>have the talent available to manage other than Windows servers unless
>they are large enough to have Unix server farms. in that case they
>already would have Oracle installed on a unix platform. smaller
>companies would tend not to choose Oracle due to the lack of talent
>mentionsed as well as the adversity to adding a DBA to staff.
>--
>Bill "Shrek" Thater ORACLE DBA
>"I'm going to work my ticket if I can..." -- Gilwell song
> william.thater@.carrier.utc.com
>----------------------
>A man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. He
>sits on a hot stove for a minute, it's longer than any hour. That is
>relativity. - Albert Einstein
>
You are correct but as with all things that too is changing. The next
release of Oracle, 10g, will have
all of the ease of use of SQL Server and a price that is equal or lower
from what I hear.

Add to that IBM's purchase of Informix and you can expect the RDBMS
marketplace to get a lot
more interesting in the next few years.

>Ok, Well Oracle is the granddaddy of them all.
>But in a breakdown of the deals SQL server is better...
>I have a very long paper that my Boss wrote that illustrated the
>difference in speeds and costs, by far, SQL server blows away Oracle and
>it is much easier to use. Oracle has to many module to do the tasks that
>in SQL server are a speed fix. Try to go to do a quick adhoc query in
>oracle 9I, Good luck. Also, I did purchase the evaluation copy of 9I it
>was like $90 and this convinced me that SQL server was much better.
>Beware, to uninstall the version of Oracle 9Iis very hard I have
>uninstalled it over 10 times and it is still showing up as an agent in
>my autoexec.bat I can not get rid of it. SQL server is unistallable ez
>Will
>*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
>Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
>
I can write a paper that proves that 3x5 cards are faster and easier to
use too: Means nothing.
SQL Server is a perfectly good product. It doesn't need to be defending
by people whose
attempt at a cure is worse than the disease.

Normally I ignore posts such as your but some of your statements are so
nonsensical as to be
pure whimsy. And I say that as someone that has, over the years,
developed in every one of
the major commercial RDBMS products.

For example you wrote: "Try to go to do a quick adhoc query in oracle
9I, Good luck."

Do you really believe this or are you totally ignorant about other RDBMS
products and
just wish to make sure everyone knows it?

I can write the exact same ad hoc SQL statement, with equal ease in SQL
Server, Sybase,
Informix, DB2, and amazingly enough Oracle.

You should stick to facts when posting. What your wrote is more suitable
for a comic book
than a technical group.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/...oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/...aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@.x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)|||In article <j0jlb.41302$Sc7.7924@.twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Greg D. Moore
$Strider$" <mooregr@.greenms.com> says...
> And the developer's edition [of SQL Server 2000]
> is now fairly cheap as I recall.

Fifty bucks for the full (developer's license) enterprise edition of SQL
Server 2000. Less, I think if you get it from a reseller. Great deal.

Now if they only had a developer's license edition of Windows Server
2003...

-- Rick|||what's a troll in this context ?

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:73e20c6c.0310211331.5b22a4e4@.posting.google.c om...
> EnglishTeacher@.ModernEnglish.com (English Teacher) wrote in message
news:<b06436f6.0310202251.15eec0c@.posting.google.com>...
> > Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> > nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
>
> This poster is a well known troll. Reply at your own risk.|||Guinness Mann wrote:

>In article <j0jlb.41302$Sc7.7924@.twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Greg D. Moore
>$Strider$" <mooregr@.greenms.com> says...
>
>>And the developer's edition [of SQL Server 2000]
>>is now fairly cheap as I recall.
>>
>>
>Fifty bucks for the full (developer's license) enterprise edition of SQL
>Server 2000. Less, I think if you get it from a reseller. Great deal.
>Now if they only had a developer's license edition of Windows Server
>2003...
>-- Rick
>
So if the point was strictly dollars I could buy a PIII machine off eBay
for a about $300.
I could put Oracle on it for free (by download) or SQL Server 2000 for $50.

I can then more than double the cost of my development environment by
getting Windows XP
or I could get the O/S for free with Linux. Pretty sad when the
operating system costs more
than the hardware and the database.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/...oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/...aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@.x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)|||Multiple cross posts to unrelated newsgroups. Of which, of course, I am now
guilty, since I don't know which grp. to direct my reply.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Robert C" <rchin@.panix.com> wrote in message
news:bn6pl8$a0u$1@.reader1.panix.com...
> what's a troll in this context ?
>
> "Noons" <wizofoz2k@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:73e20c6c.0310211331.5b22a4e4@.posting.google.c om...
> > EnglishTeacher@.ModernEnglish.com (English Teacher) wrote in message
> news:<b06436f6.0310202251.15eec0c@.posting.google.com>...
> > > Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> > > nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
> > This poster is a well known troll. Reply at your own risk.|||Someone who lurks around, popping their head up occasionally, only to
cause trouble.

Cheers,
Brian

Robert C wrote:
> what's a troll in this context ?
> "Noons" <wizofoz2k@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:73e20c6c.0310211331.5b22a4e4@.posting.google.c om...
> > EnglishTeacher@.ModernEnglish.com (English Teacher) wrote in message
> news:<b06436f6.0310202251.15eec0c@.posting.google.com>...
> > > Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> > > nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
> > This poster is a well known troll. Reply at your own risk.

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

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"|||--
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f963ad7$0$251$ed9e5944@.reading.news.pipex.ne t...
> > Actually when it comes to lowend hardware, Oracle and MSSQL are
> > more of an even heat. Both can be deployed on meagre hardware if your
> > thruput requirements are similarly meagre.
> I would disagree with that, although I have not done any benchmarks, my
> experience of Oracle on the same windows platform is that SQL Server is
that
> SQL server is the more performant. When you start looking at the User
tools

And if you put Linux and Oracle on that same exact hardware, you would most
likely notice Oracle is "more performant".

> then Oracle with all the overhead and clunkiness of Java means that SQL
> Server wins on productivity and reliability too.
> I know there are good third party tools available that will level the
score,
> and IMO the need for these with Oracle is higher!
> > However, Oracle will probably scale much better should your needs
> > be more than trivial. Oracle runs on machines with as many as 105
> > cpus, Oracle has more transparent clustering, and MSSQL doesn't
> > support table/index partitioning.
> Well this was way beyond the scope of poster!!
> > Storage and memory requirements will be similar for both
> > products. You won't be able to get away with skimping on the disk
> > hardware just because it's a Microsoft database. OTOH, Oracle can run
> > on the same Dell/Compaq hardware that msSQL uses. Just run Linux
> > rather than Solaris.
> Oracle on Linux would be a good choice. Whether the poster would want to
> dual boot or buy another machine is different approach.
> > > the edge, but if you are looking for multiplatform capabilities then
> Sybase,
> > > DB2 or Oracle may be alternatives to consider.
> > [deletia]
> John|||Don't get it...
Cause what trouble ?
What fun/satisfaction does the troll get ?
Most of time people do things for a reason...

"Brian Peasland"
> Someone who lurks around, popping their head up occasionally, only to
> cause trouble.
> Cheers,
> Brian
> Robert C wrote:
> > what's a troll in this context ?
> > "Noons" <wizofoz2k@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:73e20c6c.0310211331.5b22a4e4@.posting.google.c om...
> > > EnglishTeacher@.ModernEnglish.com (English Teacher) wrote in message
> > news:<b06436f6.0310202251.15eec0c@.posting.google.com>...
> > > > Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> > > > nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
> > > > > This poster is a well known troll. Reply at your own risk.
> --
> ================================================== =================
> 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"|||Could you guys PLEASE edit out the non pertinent newsgroups to this
discussion, like rec.woodworking, rec.photo.digital and rec
photo.equipment.35mm? Please?!?

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Robert C" <rchin@.panix.com> wrote in message
news:bn9du1$abo$1@.reader1.panix.com...
> Don't get it...
> Cause what trouble ?
> What fun/satisfaction does the troll get ?
> Most of time people do things for a reason...
>
> "Brian Peasland"
> > Someone who lurks around, popping their head up occasionally, only to
> > cause trouble.
> > Cheers,
> > Brian
> > Robert C wrote:
> > > > what's a troll in this context ?
> > > > "Noons" <wizofoz2k@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:73e20c6c.0310211331.5b22a4e4@.posting.google.c om...
> > > > EnglishTeacher@.ModernEnglish.com (English Teacher) wrote in message
> > > news:<b06436f6.0310202251.15eec0c@.posting.google.com>...
> > > > > Which would be a more useful relational database server to learn
> > > > > nowadays: MS SQL SERVER or ORACLE?
> > > > > > > > This poster is a well known troll. Reply at your own risk.
> > --
> > ================================================== =================
> > 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"|||"Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield@.audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message news:<3f964b5e$0$250$ed9e5944@.reading.news.pipex.net>...
> "Hulse" <hulse_kevin@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:16926526.0310211828.1ac77033@.posting.google.c om...
> > Erland Sommarskog <sommar@.algonet.se> wrote in message
> news:<Xns941C29886F12Yazorman@.127.0.0.1>...
> > > Daniel Morgan (damorgan@.x.washington.edu) writes:
> > > > Not sure if you can get SQL Server for free
> > > > Not completely, but there is a 120-day evaluation version available.
> > > See item 6 on http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/topdownloads.asp.
> > It is quite easy to get free copies of Oracle. They will be
> > unlicensed of course. However, you will be free to install
> > and run them. They are not cripple-ware. They are the full
> > installation packs. So you can use Oracle 9.2 EE for NT or
> > Linux without limitation (barring SBA audits).
> They are not unlicensed. You agree to a licence when you download them -
> basically non-commercial use so it fits the OP requirements for which is

For all practical purposes, what I said was correct. Anything but
a highly trivial use of the software will be unauthorized.

> better to learn. Equally you cannot use them without restriction, the
> restrictions are however reasonable.

The restrictions are not built into the software. There are no ticking
time bombs or crippled features. You could run Orbitz with the demoware
available at Oracle's website.

Oracle's demoware is not crippleware.

> As far as learning MSSQL goes, I think that I would go with MSDE on the
> grounds that 120 days to learn a RDBMS is somewhat ambitious.|||"Bill "shrek" Thater" <william.thater@.carrier.utc.com> wrote in message news:<bn65ns$t357n$2@.ID-211330.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
> > Your experience is purely anecdotal. Other people's experience may
> > well differ. But one thing is definite and that is that I can put
> > either SQL Server or Oracle on a single CPU Pentium machine and both
> > will run. But while SQL Server will only run on the Windows operating
> > system with Oracle an organization has the choice to avoid paying
> > hundreds of dollars for the operating system, they can choose Linux,
> > and also avoid all of the problems with the huge number of Windows
> > only virus, worm, and trojan attacks.
> the ability exists, however at this point in time most companies do not
> have the talent available to manage other than Windows servers unless

I have found that NT admins typically don't have the skills
to effectively manage even Windows unless they are also
capable of picking up Unix administration. The notion that you
can skimp on admin talent by running Windows is simply a myth.
You will still need someone with a clue managing the OS and the
RDBMS.

You will also need quality TSQL/PLSQL/SQL coders. Otherwise you'll
just be feeding either engine trash and get trash in return.

Otherwise, you will likely get similar results out of both
products by running them in "toy mode". Although msSQL might
have a slight edge in terms of default settings (Oracle's
are horrible).

> they are large enough to have Unix server farms. in that case they
> already would have Oracle installed on a unix platform. smaller
> companies would tend not to choose Oracle due to the lack of talent
> mentionsed as well as the adversity to adding a DBA to staff.|||Sure, sorry...but why the heck does it bother you so much ?

"Skip Middleton"
> Could you guys PLEASE edit out the non pertinent newsgroups to this
> discussion, like rec.woodworking, rec.photo.digital and rec
> photo.equipment.35mm? Please?!?|||Robert C wrote:

>Sure, sorry...but why the heck does it bother you so much ?
>"Skip Middleton"
>
>>Could you guys PLEASE edit out the non pertinent newsgroups to this
>>discussion, like rec.woodworking, rec.photo.digital and rec
>>photo.equipment.35mm? Please?!?
>>
>>
>>
Because you are not the only person on the planet. You are not the only
person that does this.
And the sum of all of the people that do it constitutes a huge waste of
time, energy, and bandwidth.

I am amazed you had to ask. Reminds me of the person that couldn't
understand why I was upset
when they parked their car blocking my driveway. Their rationale ...
they were only going to be
there for a minute. Somehow they assumed that being rude and
inconvenienceing someone else
wasn't as important as their need. They were quite wrong as they learned
to their embarrasement.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/...oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/...aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@.x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)|||> Because you are not the only person on the planet. You are not the only
> person that does this.
> And the sum of all of the people that do it constitutes a huge waste of
> time, energy, and bandwidth.

That's *exactly* why I wondered why some people let themselves be so
frustrated
by silly things such as this that they has ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL of...no
one has !
In the previous "Could you guys PLEASE..." message, he certainly sounded
exasperated to me.

"waste of bandwidth" ?
So are those people (or you) troubled by the thought that
, not just what get to your mailbox, but there are GAZILLIONS of junk emails
shooting around every single second ?
why not then ? It certainly fits the category "huge waste of time, energy,
and bandwidth."

I got a personal peeve too regarding what I consider waste of bandwidth and
resources - people, when resplying to a message,
include *every single prior message, verbatim, in the entire thread*, so the
reply can be short as a one liner but the post
is like 5 pages long...yikes !|||That's *exactly* why I wondered why some people let themselves be so

>frustrated
>by silly things such as this that they has ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL of...no
>one has !
>In the previous "Could you guys PLEASE..." message, he certainly sounded
>exasperated to me.
He was exasperated and I am now also. We say something because to not
say something
is to encourage rude, inconsiderate, thoughtless people such that they
will proliferate and
make a now minor problem a major problem. One person dropping a piece of
paper on
the street is not a big problem. Everybody dropping a piece of paper on
the street is.

My suggestion to you if you are the offender (I no longer remember or
care) is to stop
posting to this thread except to apologize again. Continuing this is
without substance
and just wastes more bandwidth. I will no longer respond to anything in
this thread in
the hopes it will die a quick death.

Talk about bandwidth hogs; massive missives with no discernible useful
purpose other than to start a flamewar.

Daniel Morgan <damorgan@.x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1067194792.802493@.yasure>...
> That's *exactly* why I wondered why some people let themselves be so
> >frustrated
> >by silly things such as this that they has ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL of...no
> >one has !
> >In the previous "Could you guys PLEASE..." message, he certainly sounded
> >exasperated to me.
> He was exasperated and I am now also. We say something because to not
> say something
> is to encourage rude, inconsiderate, thoughtless people such that they
> will proliferate and
> make a now minor problem a major problem. One person dropping a piece of
> paper on
> the street is not a big problem. Everybody dropping a piece of paper on
> the street is.
> My suggestion to you if you are the offender (I no longer remember or
> care) is to stop
> posting to this thread except to apologize again. Continuing this is
> without substance
> and just wastes more bandwidth. I will no longer respond to anything in
> this thread in
> the hopes it will die a quick death.

Friday, March 9, 2012

ORACLE or SQL SERVER (MS) ?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Oracle DBA to learn MS SQL

Blog Archive

About Me