Let's look at the development history of several database vendors.

Over the past two days, I have roughly reviewed the development history of Oracle, DB2, Sybase, and SQL Server databases and found some strange phenomena:
1. Oracle technical experts must be very low-profile.
As we all know, the functions of Oracle databases are indeed very powerful, but in the early stages of development, they often exaggerate their functions to users. That is, they are very good at promoting themselves. But for its engineers, Bruce Scott left oracle because he was unable to cope with the huge development pressure (mainly to porting many platforms) in the early days, although we have a default user in Oracle Database today, Scott, another heavyweight engineer, Oates, was also an early vice president. He left Oracle due to marital failure and then returned, but he promised that Oracle would leave again when it reached 10,000, and now he has already left the database field. It seems that only a low-profile miner will survive. I believe that he is still in Oracle today. I have been wondering why Oracle has promoted its own products, but has never publicized the Shaolin monk in his team. We cannot speculate on the level of the chief designer in the Oracle R & D team, but from the scale and features of Oracle products, we can determine that his level is definitely not under the top designer of IBM DB2 and Sybase.
This is a strange oracle.
2. Why is DB2 always so far away from us with so many patents?
The number of patents applied for by the DB2 database will surprise Oracle engineers, but oracle is not worried at all. They win the game with the products they sell. This is the difference between the two companies. DB2 has a lot of IBM Scholar-level figures, which must be very high. It can be seen from several grand events. However, DB2 always seems to be far away from us and always hangs high on the mainframe. Maybe with the advent of viper9, there will be a lot of changes.
In short, DB2 has never kept a low profile in terms of products and R & D personnel.
3. Poor Borland
Karn (spelling may be incorrect) and Karn was defeated. He created countless masters in the software development field but did not become the boss in the database field. Unfortunately, he has had several chances to put Oracle to death, and it is easy to let it go. Holding on to the standalone version of The Paradox database, the time is not long, taking people's Interbase, even don't sell, do not publicize, when really want to promote, people have been very popular.
Borland has a lot of top software experts that make Microsoft eye-catching, but most of them have been dug away by it.
4. transaction between Sybase and Microsoft
Although I don't know why Sybase cooperated with Microsoft on SQL server at the beginning, it is certainly a very bad transaction. SQL Server has already made Microsoft a lot of money, few even know that SQL Server originated from Sybase at the earliest, which is the same as Sybase ASE.

5. Terrible Microsoft
The SQL Server design team has already integrated many top-level database experts, including the Turing Prize winners and top-level software experts, who do not know what they will transform the next generation of SQL Server, although there are still some gaps between it and Oracle.

What is truly terrible:
We don't know how high the level of Oracle's chief designer is. We don't know how far the SQL server design team will play.