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