No future for DB2

[rkusenet]

This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the
author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp

[Buck Nuggets]

Noons says with authority:

dunno. But one thing I know for certain:
it takes a mainframe to run DB2.

really? should I immediately look for a mainframe to rehost some of my
db2 udb databases running on aix. Like:

- adhoc database with 500 gbytes of data and 30 users that typically
gives 5 second response on 332 mhz 4-way smp.

- dashboard database with 100 gbytes of data that runs 60,000 queries
every day - on another 332 mhz 4-way smp.

These used servers and their out of the box db2 workgroup license cost
almost nothing, and just run. I suppose I could through millions of
dollars of hardware at this problem, but everyone seems pretty happy
with this solution so far.

Someday you'll say something for certain that's actually correct. I
mean, if a million monkeys could eventually type up the complete works
of shakespear, anything can happen given enough time.

[Noons]

Buck Nuggets apparently said,on my timestamp of 30/07/2005 12:59 AM:

really? should I immediately look for a mainframe to rehost some of my
db2 udb databases running on aix. Like:
Like I said: it takes a mainframe to run db2.
udb can be run on a shitload of other stuff.
You don't listen when I yell "slow down", do you?
These used servers and their out of the box db2 workgroup license cost
almost nothing, and just run.
One day I'll show you how much our servers cost, software included...
I suppose I could through millions of
dollars of hardware at this problem, but everyone seems pretty happy
with this solution so far.
I suppose you could. But then again if peeing in dark pants
gives you a warm feeling, who am I to bother noticing?

Someday you'll say something for certain that's actually correct.
Someday. Meanwhile, I don't have to listen to you.
I
mean, if a million monkeys could eventually type up the complete works
of shakespear,
prove it, don't just say it. Want me to send you pens?
I've got some el-cheapo ones, from the previous job at
the IBM var.
anything can happen given enough time.

Yes. Even db2 becoming the same as udb.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
wi*******@yahoo .com.au.nospam

[DA Morgan]

Buck Nuggets wrote:

DA Morgan wrote:

In Oracle back-up takes two mouse clicks ... how complex is that?
Better take a look at 9i and 10g RMAN and the easy setup using OEM and
the Grid Control. I think your experience with Oracle is dated.

Yep, it's a year old. Last year I was supporting a mission-critical
300 gbyte oracle 9i database running over 100,000 transactions a day.

Personally, I'd like to be prepared for something besides a 'best-case
recovery scenario'. Two mouse-clicks? Please, save that for kids in
database 101 who don't know any better.

buck

300GB is very small and your comment about "2 mouse clicks" clearly
indicates that you have either little serious experience with Oracle
or have little serious experience with any recent version of the
product.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

Redwood Shores? I am talking about Oracle sales reps and what they pitching
to companies looking for an HR package.

They are irrelevant and you know that.

Corporate strategy and product decisions are not made by AE's.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Buck Nuggets wrote:

DA Morgan wrote:

Software is a tool ... not a religion. I'd suggest some a scotch
and some perspective if you can truly equate the two in your
mind.

lol, well if your hundreds of trolls and flames on
comp.databases. ibm-db2 aren't due to dogma, then what's your excuse?
shilling? some deep-seated insecurity? seriously, why do you spend
all of your time this way?

I teach at a university.
I have opinions.
I express them.
Much as I enjoy a good single malt so I drink them.
But I don't suggest someone is engaging in theological blasphemy if they
prefere Macallan to Glenfidich.

I think you folks take your brand loyalty just a little to seriously.
Must make the stockholders of IBM happy but I fail to see what it does
for you and intellectual integrity. Apparently since I stopped working
on DB2 there is a loyalty oath that must be signed that contains the
phrase "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil except with respect
to the other guy." Get over it.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Noons wrote:

Buck Nuggets wrote:

you could at least make your trolling a little less obvious:

I didn't start it, nuggets-boy. But I'll end it if I want to
and when I want to. Not because you belched. Clear enough?

- stating that you actually like db2 and then complaining about ibm's
marketing is bizarre.

No. You're just not intelligent enough to understand it.

Isn't there some other group you could go spend time at for a while?

Yes. It's called comp.databases. oracle.server. Where I am now.
It's you effing deranged lot that keep coming here with these
piss poor and infantile attempts at ad-hominem attacks.
You don't see me starting threads in db2 groups, do you nuggy-boy?
So, piss off you and your veiled threats before I clip you across
the ears.

Perhaps go to some islamic/hindi/budhist group and tell them that their
god is irrelevant because you found more 10x as many books on
christianit y as their religion?

I don't start threads outside of c.d.o.s., moron.
You got the wrong person.

And I didn't start this either. I was in Hawaii, laying on a beach, and
drinking scotch. You folks did this in my absence in all three groups.
Take some responsibility for your own actions.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Mark A]

"DA Morgan" <da******@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1122650135 .580562@yasure. ..

They are irrelevant and you know that.

Corporate strategy and product decisions are not made by AE's.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

What I said is that Oracle is not pitching PeopleSoft to customers
interested in HR systems. They are pitching Oracle HR exclusively, even
though PeopleSoft is superior.

I have no doubt that Oracle will try to incorporate technology, etc from
PeopleSoft into their own products, and the then kill the Peoplesoft
products. Same goes for IBM with Informix.

[Sybrand Bakker]

On 29 Jul 2005 06:19:00 -0700, "Buck Nuggets" <bu*********@ya hoo.com>
wrote:

I hope so - postgresql is the best open source database out there. And
good enough that I think db2, oracle, and informix are in deep trouble
in 5-10 years

Please dream on. Informix has been bought by IBM and will disappear
soon. DB2 will never get any substantial marketshare on any non-IBM
platform.
Oracle will always have more R & D funding at their disposal, and will
be capable to have postgresql stay where it is now: in the toy
department.
--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

[Buck Nuggets]

> Oracle will always have more R & D funding at their disposal, and will

be capable to have postgresql stay where it is now: in the toy
department.

And there's no way that a free web server like Apache or a free browser
like Firefox will ever compete against Microsoft's R&D. Or free
languages like PHP, Python, and Ruby will ever compete against Sun's
R&D. Unfortunately, the mythical man month prevents you from getting a
linear productivity improvement from a linear increase in staff. So,
Oracle might have a thousand people doing R&D - but probably only a
dozen can work productively on the engine. What are the rest doing?
Building XML extenders? Integrating purchased ETL software?
Integrating java? Big deal.

Face it - in spite of a wide collection of defects and limitations,
mysql is picking a ton of steam. The fact that it easily corrupts data
(allows invalid dates, truncates strings & numbers without warnings),
has terrible performance for most application, etc - none of this
matters. Many people don't know, don't care, and just buy it. And
Oracle has lost their revenue. To a *toy* database. Even worse for
Oracle - Mysql won't be a toy forever and postgresql isn't a toy now.

Postgresql right now is sufficiently mature for use in fortune 100s.
However, since it can't handle the most demanding tasks, these
companies typically require multiple products - like Postgresql plus
DB2/Oracle/Informix/Sybase/etc. And since the cost of maintaining two
separate skillsets generally exceeds the licensing savings, it's
usually (in my opinion) worth it for large companies to forego the
occasional license savings and stick to a consistent commercial product
line. Today.

But small companies, with small data requirements? They're generally
fine on postgresql right now..

And with every passing year - between Moore's Law, and the rapid
evolution of these products we're going to see them absorb the smallest
databases - until the only databases still using large commercial
products will be the rare monsters.

I suspect that this is one of the reasons that Oracle desperately needs
to become an applications company.

[Matt Emmerton]

"Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.ibm .com> wrote in message
news:3k******** *****@individua l.net...

Noons wrote:

Sure. But there is still a very clear limit: going back to
the volumes bit I mentioned above. Those of us who still have
to process serious amounts of data in as little time as possible
are still using good old C/C++, shell scripts, perl here and there
and maybe in a moment of light-headed enthusiasm, python/php. (Now,
THOSE are interesting languages!) Funny, I thought assembly language to rules supreme.
Layers of abstraction:
microcoding,
assembly,
C/C++
Java
...

Folks are debating DBA skills in these forums. Ever tried to get C/C++
skills? It's a b**** to get a good C programmer nowadays.
Certainty the kids who wrote C when they were 16 and hit the job with 10
years experience don't exist anymore.

Well, I fit that description -- I guess that's why IBM hired me!
Point being, you wouldn't go back to micro-coding, you wouldn't go back
to assembly. Too expensive in labour, too unwieldy.
C/C++ is already turning into a niche skill.
The abstraction layer just keeps on rising because Moore's law and
inflation favours throwing Hz and bytes at any problem over brain.

It's also a management issue. Managing 10Mloc of C code is tedious. But a
set of 1000 Java "objects" is somewhat easier, at least from a conceptual
level. This is the force that is driving Java app servers with JSP/servlet
technology in the industry today, and is the reason why WebSphere and the
Apache group's products (Jakarta, Tomcat, etc) and countable others exist.
XML fits in here in a simliar vein but is being driven into the DBMS
products directly instead of being handled by a separate product that
separates the presentation from the data.

--
Matt Emmerton