Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!husc6!hscfvax!pavlov
From: pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: RDBMS for Sun 3 Systems
Message-ID: <701@hscfvax.harvard.edu>
Date: 5 Jan 89 02:39:13 GMT
References: <820@dinl.mmc.UUCP>
Organization: Health Sciences Computing Facility, Harvard University
Lines: 25

In article <820@dinl.mmc.UUCP>, noren@dinl.uucp (Charles Noren) writes:
>   An employee of Oracle wrote:
>   "I suggest ORACLE.  Obviously, since I work for the company, my suggestions
>   are suspect :-).  I will point out that support is superb (I call the same
>   support line that customers use, and they're really wonderful compared to
>   some of the vendors I deal with).
> 
>   "I will also add an anti-recommendation for INGRES.  I had to use it in my
>   previous job (version 5.0), and it was horribly buggy.  Ick.
> 
    Funny, when we evaluated dbms's on a machine, our experiences were exactly
    the opposite.  On both counts.  At that time, they dragged out a former 
    RTI employee to give us the grubby "low down" on Ingres as well.  We 
    haven't seen any of it on the platforms we've run on (HP 9000, VAX VMS &
    Ultrix, SUN, MIPS, and IBM clone PC's).

    Not to say that Oracle is worthless or doesn't work fine on some subset 
    (maybe the overwhelming majority) of the machines its been ported to.  But
    the only thing it has over anyone else is marketing.  Glossy, as in the
    trade rags, or shoddy, as in the above.

    greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny