Preemptive strike against Oracle/Sun?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip Jun 19, 2009 4:09 AM EDT |
The story is strange. It seems that MS has a winner in "System.Data.OracleClient". It's actually used and appreciated by developers and seen as a high quality, no hassle component. Yet MS axes it because the quality is "sub-par" and to costly to bring up to snuff. Are the war chests really empty or is this a preemtive strike against the Oracle/Sun power house? How well does SQL-server stack up against Solaris/Oracle? Maybe I have a case of "Tin Foil Hattitis", but the move strikes me as the anti-thesis of "Developers, developers, developers, developers!" |
| jacog Jun 19, 2009 4:44 AM EDT |
Don't Microsoft have an "open source" division they could hand the project to instead? Anyway, yah... insert tin foil hat disclaimer here, but something smells foul. |
| bigg Jun 19, 2009 6:50 AM EDT |
*Laughing* Software freedom is an abstract concept that nobody cares about, right? |
| jdixon Jun 19, 2009 7:35 AM EDT |
> Are the war chests really empty or is this a preemtive strike against the Oracle/Sun power house? Do you really have to ask? Microsoft has no interest in supporting a competitor's product once they feel their own is ready. > How well does SQL-server stack up against Solaris/Oracle? IMO (and no, I'm not a database person, merely an outside observer), it doesn't, but I believe Microsoft disagrees. |
| gus3 Jun 19, 2009 7:56 AM EDT |
If ever there were a business case to make against CLOS, this could be case study #1. |
| phsolide Jun 19, 2009 10:29 AM EDT |
I had the same suspicions when I read this article. I think the angle is "Make Oracle (and/or other 3rd party devs) play catchup." It's worked in the past, particularly during the OS/2/Windows 3 switcheroo in 1993. The only things that played catchup and won are Mozilla. Everyone else is eating dust. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 19, 2009 2:26 PM EDT |
Solaris/Oracle crushes Windows Server/MS-SQL Server for really serious workloads, but Microsoft believes that their product is good enough to be marketable. And on that, they are probably right. Marketing often trumps technical superiority. The marketing doesn't even need to be better, sometimes just overwhelmingly pervasive is good enough. And that seems to be Microsoft's method. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!