I'm not very familiar with PostgreSQL but I can tell you that Oracle is a giant money machine. To do anything with Oracle is complex and so it takes "experts". Usually people who talk about how Oracle is the one and only true solution are people who have spent their life making a lot money off of "solving" complex solutions that didn't really need to be that way to begin with. My advice is to stay as far away from Oracle as possible.

Almost all of the junk they sell to execs is designed to sound fancy but is usually a lie. Guess what a "personal Oracle cloud" is? A machine that sits in your server room that everyone else calls a server. It's just junk designed to cost more money.

Nice troll. Do you have that figure?

The vast majority of people buy a PC at Best Buy, and use what's on it, crapware and all. Only a tiny percentage of consumers can delete partitions and install OS's.

Yup, having a menu fill the screen instead of just a portion of the screen is definitely as horrible and complicated as all that shit you just spouted off.

You don't seem to understand. You're right, Apple shouldn't have the ability to set prices for other stores, but what they did was get the publishers to agree that they wouldn't allow other stores (aka: Amazon) to sell for prices less than Apple.

That's why there is such a "to do" about this. It's not the way things normally work and that's why the DOJ has brought the lawsuit about.

HAHA! Love TMBG... makes me feel old though.

Oracle is definitely a cheaper more open option to float out there...

You do realize that everyone who watched weeds will be humming along right?

Apple keeps suing everyone around Google. I'm sure that really encourages Google to want to do anything for Apple for free.

Can any excess heat be concentrated and sent back into the central star, rendering it indistinguishable from natural fusion energy release? Apologies in advance if that's a hopelessly noob question.

With a link to goatse in the body text.

I regularly feel like the power of almighty Oracle is slightly overstated. SQL Server has a bad rap from around SQL Server 2000 and under but today it's pretty powerful right out of the box. With that said, I don't have any hard data to back it up, but my guess is its a lot of misconceptions and design flaws. Throw a giant team of people and a boatload of hardware at each solution and I bet you could get similar results, its just that people expect to spend a stupid amount of money on Oracle, not so much on SQL Server.

Scope is important, however there is a common misconception that SQL Server can't handle anything bigger than a few Gigabytes. The largest single SQL Server database I've ever heard of is about 70TB. I'm sure 200TB would find it cramped but it also depends on how you're defining a database.

Microsoft SQL Server definitely isn't designed for smaller databases... maybe you're thinking of Access?