|
Oracle已经过时？(2) A point that Mogens makes mid-way through the article though is that, whilst it's all well and good instrumenting the database, in most cases an application consists of a SAN, operating system, an application server, application code and so on, and if you've only got feedback on how the database is performing, you've only got part of the story. Mogens makes the good point that, whilst Microsoft haven't eXPosed SQL Server's internals in the same way that Oracle have, in fact they've got a historical chance to instrument the entire application platform, as they own the technology behind Windows Server, IIS, .NET and so on, a Google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=1095673924.662376.36040@k17g2000odb.googlegroups.com&rnum=15">point made again by Niall Litchfield in a thread on comp.databases.oracle.server. Where this goes on to though is that, whilst it's fantastic what Oracle's done with instrumenting the database kernel, what Mogens is actually finding in real life is that, like disk storage and operating systems before it, the database itself is now becoming a commodity, with no-one these days getting fired for buying Microsoft SQL Server, and many organisations looking to open source databases such as mySQL to handle their day-to-day database needs. Whilst this is moving databases as a whole into the legacy category, it particularly hurts Oracle badly as firstly, the Oracle RBDMS is expensive and still to this day requires a level of administrative skill well above SQL Server and mySQL, and secondly, for Oracle, database revenues are still the majority of their total license revenues. According to the article,
|
