Thanks for the comments, folks.
To dma333: regarding what a schema is, you are right. As this article is geared more toward Sql Server DBAs, I thought using the database analogy is easier for the target audience to understand. I hear you about manageability issues with Oracle. I personally don't have much DW experience to add to your comment, but like you said, table and index partition and 64-bit will be very helpful in that regard.
To Stephen: Actually tablespace is more like a filegroup in Sql Server. Like filegroup, a tablespace can have several data files.
To Kevin: Yup, the editorial is a bit out of place here. This article grew out of a blog entry I had. It is appropriate to have a personal opinion at my own blog site, it may not be very appropriate for it to appear in a formal article.
To nvb: regarding how common tasks are done on both platforms, that is really a loaded question. However, I blog regularly on my blog at http://www.HaidongJi.com. And that is a subject that I am personally interested in. I plan to blog more on it. In addition to Oracle and Sql Server, I will cover some MySql as well.
As to cost and TCO, my personal opinion is that Sql Server is definitely cheaper. With multi-core servers becoming prevalent, that will be even more obvious. Sql Server pricing is based on number of sockets, regardless of how many cores you put in. Oracle, on the other hand, charge customers based on the number of cores the machine has. Of course, pricing changes all the time and big customers rarely pay the sticker price. It's kind of like Boeing and Airbus planes. I don't think anybody is paying the list prices.