I agree with Frans. My last experience with Oracle was
in 1999, when it "Just Worked" and SQL
Server "Just Crashed" (This was before
SQL 2000, and now SQL Server "Just
Works.") I agree that you can't judge a db by
the tools you use to manage it. Strange. There's so many
apps out there that are truly deserved of harsh harsh
critcisim (can you say Crustal?) that I just don't get
the oracle bashing.
If this could be easily done I would install an Oracle
developer edition on my PC and use it for my training
purposes - but the tools r still problematic. The DB and
its related build in features r assume and as Frans
pointed lots of Yukon "amazing" stuff
were supported in Oracle for a long time.
I had the opportunity to work with pl/sql for few months
and I found it enjoyable and comfortable much like
working with a real language and not just scripts.
I have installed, admined, and programmed Oracle 8i and
9i, SQL Server 2000, Postgresql 7, and MySQL 4. Here are
my observations.
Oracle 8i/9i
-------------
admin/install - I curse thee at the top of my lungs.
features - Unbeatable, unmatched.
SQL Server 2000
-------------------
admin/install - Easy as cake, the way it should be.
features - I started out on Oracle, so compared to
Oracle I felt restricted in my options. Some
shortcomings were a major PITA but mostly because I was
spoiled by Oracle.
PostgreSQL
----------------
admin/install - Way easier than Oracle, slightly harder
than SQL Server 2000.
features - A poor man's Oracle. Matches almost all the
features from Oracle that I use.
MySQL
----------------
admin/install - Same as Postgres.
features - Crap, see ya later.
My ideal database would be the cost/license of
PostgreSQL, ease of admining and installation of SQL
Server 2000, and the feature set and stability of
Oracle.