News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive? by asnyder on Monday September 07, 2009 @11:30AM (#809282)
Databases such as Oracle, and DB2 are either equal or better in certain respects. Furthermore, I personally find PostgreSQL to be on par if not better than MSSQL. Aside from PostgreSQL's inability to return multiple recordsets, IMHO it's easier to write stored procedures, functions, views, and triggers in PostgreSQL. In addition PostgreSQL is significantly more consistent syntacticly. Every so often my brother who works for an MS shop will ask me how to do something relatively complex in MSSQL, I'll show him how, but in addition I'll also show him how much easier it would've been in PostgreSQL.

One can argue that when working with SQL Server Studio you don't have to worry about how to do things since the IDE will create most of what you need. However, the same can be said of decent IDEs for PostgreSQL, such as EMS.

Personally, I like the ability to read my functions, views, and triggers, and be able to easily understand what's happening; which is not something I usually experience when working with MSSQL.

Re:Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive? by StrawberryFrog on Monday September 07, 2009 @12:28PM (#809360)
I last used Oracle circa 2002. The experience of using the SQL workbench tools, and installing a new server was far worse, just awful compared to the SQL Server equivalent.
Re:Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive? by ams6110 on Monday September 07, 2009 @02:12PM (#809517)
Oracle's tools and installers are still not what you'd expect for the price. They are vastly improved from 2002 however.