http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:1011065100346196442

I really could argue this for days, but lets take a couple of points here:

1) File systems are written in a FUNDAMENTALLY different way then a relational database (WinFS as an example of a filesystem that could NOT mimic a database)

2) If you put a word doc into an Oracle database, you BREAK one of Tom’s cardinal rules: type the column correct for the data.

3) This quote is ridiculous: “if you store them in the database, they are not files anymore – they are data.” No Tom, they are files – the storage DOES NOT MATTER – only the application use does. If the application is built to look at files, you’ve just abstracted its unit of work in a really dumb way.

4) Suggesting that XML DB is the right way to do this is just silly – So, I’m going to take documents that may or may not support the tenents of XML, then put it in XML DB to make is searchable? You’re abstracting the actual format of the doc twice.

That’s just the start of my objections. This is a dumb architectural choice, and while I respect Tom alot, this is just dumb, and cuts to the core of a stupid philosophy about Oracle – that it can do everything.

Tom you’re better than this. Don’t recommend insufficient design just cause its Oracle.