I'm sure glad the question was only rhetorical... :o) I'd hate to have to answer that one... :o)
>No flames coming from here. Everyone works with what they feel comfortable with. That said, I wonder why anyone would sacrifice capability and security for ease of deployment and cost? :) (rhetorical question).
>
>>Actually, at the risk of starting a flame-war :o), I worked with Oracle heavily for 7 years when I worked for the government. Back then I would have preferred it over SqlServer (1996-2001) for capabilities and security. Now, I prefer SQLServer only because I have worked with it so much since and it's easy to deploy to customer sites (and much cheaper).
>>
>>
>>>Actually, there are several other open-source middleware servers out there that are not controlled by either Oracle or IBM. JBoss comes immediately to mind.
>>>
>>>Oracle has invested so much effort and time to make their products Java-compliant it would be extremely foolish of them to drop Java. And, regardless of your feelings towards Oracle, one thing they do not do very often is something foolish.
>>>
>>>>No but competition for Java-based application servers and the Java middleware market will be limited to Oracle and IBM. That could have huge ramifications for small companies relying on open source technologies.
>>>>
>>>>This is just for your reading pleasure:
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.javaworld.com/community/?q=node/3689>>>>
>>>>:o)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>SNIP
.·*´¨)
.·`TCH
(..·*
010000110101001101101000011000010111001001110000010011110111001001000010011101010111001101110100
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.)
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." -- author unknown
"De omnibus dubitandum"