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.