Databasen - Revisited

[Dirk Koopman]

On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 11:04 +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2006, at 08:12, Michel Rodriguez wrote:
> 
> > Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> >
> >> Sybase is still the database for Real Men(tm) though.
> >
> > Sorry for asking a serious question here: it looks like Sybase is  
> > widely popular in the banking and financial industries. Is there  
> > any specific technical reason, or is it just "historical reasons".
> 
> Historical. It was the only decent database that wasn't Oracle.
> 
> It also hasn't changed much in 15 years. They've added stuff to it
> like replication, but I can still navigate it (with the aid of my
> ancient, well thumbed SAMS book).
> 

Neither has ingres. It is a perfectly reasonable database that "just
works"[tm]. It has become very unfashionable because that is all it is,
it has no fancy bits or "features". 

Sybase does also have the misfortune of being the ancestor of SQL Server
and it still shows - more's the pity.