Re: SQL Server vs Oracle?!
- From: "Karl Seguin" <karlremove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:40:53 -0500
Well, between December 2000 and November 2006, 233 security vulnerabilities were found in Oracle database products by OUTSIDE researchers versus 59 for SQL server.
Also since the release of SQL Server 2005, Microsoft hasn't released a single security patch - and it isn't because they've been lazy, it's because nothing's been found yet.
Here are some sources:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9005383&source=rss_topic17
http://www.databasesecurity.com/dbsec/comparison.pdf
Oracle has seen a huge increase in security issues lately and has received a lot of bad press for it..
Karl
--
http://www.openmymind.net/
http://www.fuelindustries.com/
"Steve Kershaw" <steve_kershaw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1166111718.922249.229200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I need your help!
I'm working at a company that is considering changing from Oracle to
SQL Server 2005. The debate goes on and on and on....
I need some arguments that will help me convince those who are on the
fence to go to SQL Server 2005 for all new development projects. Can
anybody help me with this?
Steve
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SQL Server vs Oracle?!
- From: wfairl
- Re: SQL Server vs Oracle?!
- References:
- SQL Server vs Oracle?!
- From: Steve Kershaw
- SQL Server vs Oracle?!
- Prev by Date: print truncates text
- Next by Date: Re: Authentication problem continued
- Previous by thread: Re: SQL Server vs Oracle?!
- Next by thread: Re: SQL Server vs Oracle?!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|