I am quite sure that it is a matter of probabilities. Oracle, I understand, has several built-in protection features, so that would make the probability of the database breaking down smaller. It should be obvious that this probability can never quite reach zero, so they should never have used words like "unbreakable".
>Interesting information about how Oracle can break. As I have said for years any back end can break. It is a fallacy that only dbf’s break and are not stable. I have seen SQL Server, Sybase, Oracle and dbf’s break. Such problems can be minimized and most of the time resolved. The difference in these different data bases is the cost and monies associated with each. The more money the greater the hype!
>
>Terms like stability, and security are marketing words that can mean anything. The more money you pour into marketing the more the world will believe your message. There are ways to increase stability and security but not to the point of perfection. Everything has a price and a limit.
>
>
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-1026450.html>
>Tom
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
