346  16292 
Blair Adamache wrote: the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has
invested quite a bit to change this.
Hmm - I guess this level of investment to non 'Oracle-centric' solutions
doesn't actually extend to training then - from the SAP web site
BC535 - Database Administration - DB2 UDB (4.6) - This course is
currently not scheduled.
BC530 - Database Administration - DB2/390 (4.6) - This course is
currently not scheduled.
BC511 - Database Administration - Informix Online (4.6C) - This course
is currently not scheduled.
SAP, Seibel, Peoplesoft etc are not stupid, and are as market driven as
any other company. Their customers want their products on the Oracle
database, and no amount of postulating or hand waving from other
database vendors is going to change that. In fact, there is significant
evidence to show that Oracle's market share under these packaged
applications is actually growing (and indeed, that IBM's share is
declining).
Daniel Morgan wrote: Buck ... your protest would be far more genuine if you just acknowledged
the fact that what Noon wrote is correct. These systems all started on
IBM mainframes. Ask me how I know. ;-)
Me, too! How do you know? And can you post soem thing to confirm that
other than your word?
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Then why would Oracle want to buy Peoplesoft at a price tag of $7.7 billion?
Mark Townsend wrote: ...In fact, there is significant
evidence to show that Oracle's market share under these packaged
applications is actually growing (and indeed, that IBM's share is
declining).
Daniel Morgan wrote: Buck Nuggets wrote:
wi*******@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message
news:<73**************************@posting.google. com>...
Absolute total and utter nonsense. SAP, Siebel, JD Edwards and many
others were written FIRST for IBM mainframe environments. That is
where their origin lies. To claim that they "moved away" from
Oracle is the perfect definition of historical revisionism a-la IBM!
Will you get over it already? You're filling the newsgroups up with
crap - apparently out of some weird need to downplay IBM's market
share.
Although an analysis of these trends is interesting - it certainly
isn't when subject to this kind of bullshit.
Just let it go....
buck
Buck ... your protest would be far more genuine if you just acknowledged
the fact that what Noon wrote is correct. These systems all started on
IBM mainframes. Ask me how I know. ;-)
Might be you know, but I donot care. Can you please shut up. Oracle poeple
like old women with wet under cloths.
--
Enor
"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
news:%WDzc.36077$2i5.12718@attbi_s52... Blair Adamache wrote:
the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has
invested quite a bit to change this.
Hmm - I guess this level of investment to non 'Oracle-centric' solutions
doesn't actually extend to training then - from the SAP web site
BC535 - Database Administration - DB2 UDB (4.6) - This course is
currently not scheduled.
BC530 - Database Administration - DB2/390 (4.6) - This course is
currently not scheduled.
BC511 - Database Administration - Informix Online (4.6C) - This course
is currently not scheduled.
It seems like you're bending the truth a little bit here.
I had a look at this page on the SAP USA Education site: http://www.sap.com/usa/education/cur...p?cid=60051017
for course BC530, and it says perfectly clear (even highlighted in red):
================================================== ==========================
======
This course is taught by IBM. To Register, please Call 1-800-IBM-TEACH and
refer to course code "ES530".
================================================== ==========================
======
AFAIK, it is part of an agreement between SAP and IBM, where SAP teaches the
application stuff and IBM the database related subjects.
(I know this to be true for OS390/zOS, not sure about Informix or DB2 on
other platforms).
"Blair Adamache" <ba*******@2muchspam.yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:ca**********@hanover.torolab.ibm.com... I thought SAP R2 was written for MVS, and SAP R3 was written first for
Oracle, and then moved to DB2 (on MVS, UNIX and Windows).
Certainly the SAP of the early 1990's bought into all the IBM
cross-platform fun (Strategic Systems Architecture, perhaps even Common
User Access). Early versions of SAP were also written for Adabas
(perhaps R1?), but the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has
invested quite a bit to change this.
In my recollection, JD Edwards was never a mainframe software vendor.
Their backgrounds is IBM S3/X and AS/400, which are known as mid-range
or minicomputer systems.
I don't know about the other apps., but SAP R2 indeed was written for MVS.
It wasn't build for relational dbms's though, but relied upon VSAM.
Because SAP wanted to support relational dbms's, they came up with SAP R/3.
Initially (iirc) they developed their own dbms for this, but with C/S and
distributed db's becoming more and more important, it seemed only logical
for them to switch to Oracle for their development efforts.
Later on, SAP decided to go with DB2 for appl. development, mainly because
Oracle did become a big competitor for them, and DB2/UDB apparently was
mature enough to be a viable alternative for them.
Nothing to do with SAP first (technically) preferring Oracle and now DB2,
just commercial/marketing reasons, imho. As long as customers use their
apps. and not Oracle's, SAP doesn't really care which db-platform they use
for it.
> I don't know about the other apps., but SAP R2 indeed was written for MVS. It wasn't build for relational dbms's though, but relied upon VSAM.
Because SAP wanted to support relational dbms's, they came up with SAP
R/3. Initially (iirc) they developed their own dbms for this, but with C/S and
distributed db's becoming more and more important, it seemed only logical
for them to switch to Oracle for their development efforts.
Later on, SAP decided to go with DB2 for appl. development, mainly because
Oracle did become a big competitor for them, and DB2/UDB apparently was
mature enough to be a viable alternative for them.
Nothing to do with SAP first (technically) preferring Oracle and now DB2,
just commercial/marketing reasons, imho. As long as customers use their
apps. and not Oracle's, SAP doesn't really care which db-platform they use
for it.
Oracle application software is one of SAP's biggest competitors, so I can
see why they are anxious to not depend on Oracle DBMS. Things would have
gotten really touchy had the Oracle-PeopleSoft merger gone through.
Since IBM is also a huge SAP customer for IBM internal systems, that doesn't
hurt either.
Talk about changing the subject to avoid the issue. Weren't we talking
about the major ERP ISVs and whether or not they were "built" for IBM
mainframes and whether or not they were moving away from Oracle for
their own internal use?
Truth Seeker
Mark Townsend wrote: Blair Adamache wrote:
the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has
invested quite a bit to change this.
Hmm - I guess this level of investment to non 'Oracle-centric' solutions
doesn't actually extend to training then - from the SAP web site
BC535 - Database Administration - DB2 UDB (4.6) - This course is
currently not scheduled.
BC530 - Database Administration - DB2/390 (4.6) - This course is
currently not scheduled.
BC511 - Database Administration - Informix Online (4.6C) - This course
is currently not scheduled.
SAP, Seibel, Peoplesoft etc are not stupid, and are as market driven as
any other company. Their customers want their products on the Oracle
database, and no amount of postulating or hand waving from other
database vendors is going to change that. In fact, there is significant
evidence to show that Oracle's market share under these packaged
applications is actually growing (and indeed, that IBM's share is
declining).
TruthbeKnown wrote: Talk about changing the subject to avoid the issue. Weren't we talking
about the major ERP ISVs and whether or not they were "built" for IBM
mainframes and whether or not they were moving away from Oracle for
their own internal use?
Hmm - I was responding to the following from Blair
Well, SAP R3, and applications from Peoplesoft, Siebel and JD Edwards, many of
which were written for Oracle and later ported to DB2, Sybase, Informix IDS and
SQL Server in the 1990's, have had extensive investment from their owners to be
"anything but Oracle" as their internal RDBMS development platform.
It's entirely possible however that Blair and I are both off-topic, and
I suspect at least one of us is permanently.
Mark Townsend wrote: Blair Adamache wrote:
the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has
invested quite a bit to change this.
Hmm - I guess this level of investment to non 'Oracle-centric' solutions
doesn't actually extend to training then - from the SAP web site
BC535 - Database Administration - DB2 UDB (4.6) - This course is
currently not scheduled.
BC530 - Database Administration - DB2/390 (4.6) - This course is
currently not scheduled.
BC511 - Database Administration - Informix Online (4.6C) - This course
is currently not scheduled.
SAP, Seibel, Peoplesoft etc are not stupid, and are as market driven as
any other company. Their customers want their products on the Oracle
database, and no amount of postulating or hand waving from other
database vendors is going to change that. In fact, there is significant
evidence to show that Oracle's market share under these packaged
applications is actually growing (and indeed, that IBM's share is
declining).
There is zero demand for classes on any of these products at the college
and university level too so I am not surprised.
--
Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
It seems like you're bending the truth a little bit here.
I think my point still stands - the market tends to decide what database
gets chosen under SAP (or indeed, any packaged app vendor), and is not
swayed too much by any contra deals set up between one vendor and another.
Instead of availability of training, consider another metric for what
the market wants - a monster search for jobs
"oracle and sap" returns 1178 hits
"db2 and sap" returns 119 hits
"informix and sap" returns 35 hits
"sqlserver and sap" returns (a surprisingy) 7 hits
"oracle and peoplesoft" - 906 hits
"db2 and peoplesoft" - 143 hits
"informix and peoplesoft" - 75 hits
"sqlserver and peoplesoft" - 14 hits
"oracle and siebel" - 493 hits
"db2 and siebel" - 74 hits
"informix and siebel" - 13 hits
"sqlserver and siebel" - 6 hits
Does this mean that demand for Oracle expertise under a packaged app is
at least 6 times stronger than for the next closest database ?
And, deamnd aside, given there is a significant lack of training
available for anybody to cross skill, does this mean that this will stay
this way for the foreseeable future ?
All questions are purely rhetorical, of course.
But there's your marketshare numbers.
Buck Nuggets wrote:
Will you get over it already? You're filling the newsgroups up with
crap - apparently out of some weird need to downplay IBM's market
share.
Although an analysis of these trends is interesting - it certainly
isn't when subject to this kind of bullshit.
Just let it go....
This thread is starting to resemble the Simpsons episode where Apu's mother
visits, and he pretends to be married to Marge.
Then Apu reveals he lied to his mother:
Homer: You know what you could do, Apu...
Apu: Shut up.
Homer: You could fake your own death...
Apu: Shut up!
Homer: All you need is a bomb...
Apu: I can't believe that you don't shut up!
SHUT UP!!!!!
SHUT UP!!!!!
SHUT UP!!!!!
I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT YOU DON'T SHUT UP!
This thread has been going since the 28th of last month.
RK - you have a LOT to answer for. Please take yourself out behind the shed
and beat the living crap out of yourself.
Daniel,
Interesting that you need 'college classes' for your pet db and the
other database products are easy enough to use that they really don't
require much training, if any, of any kind, formal or informal. In fact,
training appears to be more of a necessity for Oracles' complex product
line than any other database product despite Larry claiming at one time
in the recent past to reduce complexity. Oracle is about making money
more than anything, hat's off to them, but that doesn't make them better
than the others--which I think is the point you and Mark want to make
on a regular basis. Quantity vs quality. Form vs substance. Where's
Woody Allen?
SQL-Server installs in about 10 minutes, same for the others. Most if
not all RDBMS products function in an operational mode without the
need for anyone trained or untrained to maintain them--except maybe according
to you Oracle needs training, and what does that really say about the
product that it needs so much hand-holding?
Your condescending remarks about CRM/MRP products also is interesting
in that these are products that are indeed commercial enterprise applications
with training programs typically of their own, they may or may not appear
in a college setting, nor would anyone expect them too. This doesn't
make them worthless which is what you're trying to say, as if Oracle
is the only product worth considering. You also try to suggest that Oracle
is somehow more legitimate for having 'college classes' as if academic
standing is important. The banality would be complete to hear about
Oracle 'fellows'--which works for IBM, but it would be so ridiculous
if Oracle started doing that. An Oracle Fellow, that would be hilarious.
"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1087349038.352795@yasure... Mark Townsend wrote:
Blair Adamache wrote:
the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has
invested quite a bit to change this.
Hmm - I guess this level of investment to non 'Oracle-centric' solutions
doesn't actually extend to training then - from the SAP web site
BC535 - Database Administration - DB2 UDB (4.6) - This course is
currently not scheduled.
BC530 - Database Administration - DB2/390 (4.6) - This course is
currently not scheduled.
BC511 - Database Administration - Informix Online (4.6C) - This course
is currently not scheduled.
SAP, Seibel, Peoplesoft etc are not stupid, and are as market driven as
any other company. Their customers want their products on the Oracle
database, and no amount of postulating or hand waving from other
database vendors is going to change that. In fact, there is significant
evidence to show that Oracle's market share under these packaged
applications is actually growing (and indeed, that IBM's share is
declining).
There is zero demand for classes on any of these products at the college
and university level too so I am not surprised.
--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
> which I think is the point you and Mark want to make on a regular basis.
Thanks for noticing - and just so it's clear (for the newer viewers out
there, at least), I does indeed work for Oracle, so my motives are
clear, even if my prose ain't.
I think adjusted by various means (like adding DB/2 to the search
criteria, making sure to exclude Oracle Apps and other Oracle products
and the much debated DBA/DB ratio which is hard to nail down)
the numbers may indeed reflect Oracle's market share in the same way as
the used parts results for the orginal beetle on ebay tells us something
about how many beetles are out there.
A more sarcastic observer may call these legacy systems (like those old
upgraded DB2 on mainframe systems. ;-)
The interesting numbers to be are new license revenues. Is the ratio of
Siebel/Oracle to Siebel/DB2 shifting?
This is like climate change. It's not like in "The day after tomorrow"
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
The interesting numbers to be are new license revenues. Is the ratio of
Siebel/Oracle to Siebel/DB2 shifting?
This is like climate change. It's not like in "The day after tomorrow"
Absolutely agreed - which is why some of the numbers published last week
about who is gaining marketshare under the packaged apps, and who is
losing, are very, very interesting. Ask me more.
> > The interesting numbers to be are new license revenues. Is the ratio of Siebel/Oracle to Siebel/DB2 shifting?
This is like climate change. It's not like in "The day after tomorrow"
Absolutely agreed - which is why some of the numbers published last week
about who is gaining marketshare under the packaged apps, and who is
losing, are very, very interesting. Ask me more.
Only the people who work for DBMS care about market share. Oracle, DB2, and
MS SQL Server will not be going away in our lifetime, so who cares. bu*********@yahoo.com (Buck Nuggets) wrote in message news:<66**************************@posting.google. com>... wi*******@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message news:<73**************************@posting.google. com>...
Will you get over it already?
No.
You're filling the newsgroups up with
crap - apparently out of some weird need to downplay IBM's market
share.
No.
Although an analysis of these trends is interesting - it certainly
isn't when subject to this kind of bullshit.
Bullshit will always be pointed out. Wherever it is coming from.
Just let it go....
No.
Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1087308242.153441@yasure>...
Buck ... your protest would be far more genuine if you just acknowledged
the fact that what Noon wrote is correct. These systems all started on
IBM mainframes. Ask me how I know. ;-)
You see: some of these "impartial observers" are sooo ready
to blame everything they don't know or have never seen
on the nearest target...
Completely forgetting of course that this is the Usenet, and
no amount of "shut up orders" from them will work.
Pity it ain't a moderated ng where crap can go on
unchallenged for as long as the "owners" want, eh?
Darn!
One very simple way of this thread stopping: stop posting
false and derogatory remarks about IBM's competitors.
There: simple and easy to understand, even for an IBM marketeer.
Cheers
Serge Rielau <sr*****@ca.eye-be-em.com> wrote in message news:<ca**********@hanover.torolab.ibm.com>... Do you have any data to back up the claim that Siebel's premier
development platform and internal systems ran first DB2 mainframe?
Other than its deranged architectrure? no.
Fact is that when Oracle started competing with their apps vendors those
vendors try as best as they can to distance themselves from Oracle.
No. They try as best as tehy can to ALSO BE AVAILABLE on
Oracle's competitive products. Got the diff?
Let me see if I can use small enough words so that some
guys can understand:
the fact that a maker ports its product to another
database does NOT mean that the initial database
has stopped being used or supported by this
same maker. Got it, or is the concept too hard to grasp?
Siebel itself now runs it's Siebel on DB2 and IBM runs Siebel on DB2.
So what?
I don't know how far along Siebel is converting it's development
platform from Oracle to DB2.
Along nowhere. It's not CONVERTING, it's PORTING.
Crap, you people are thick sometimes...
"Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Ze******************@fe44.usenetserver.com>. .. other database products are easy enough to use that they really don't
require much training, if any, of any kind, formal or informal. In fact,
Are they? Let me see: they don't need SQL, is it?
Ah yes: put me in front of a DB2 or sql server database and I'll
show you how difficult it is to manage or use.
training appears to be more of a necessity for Oracles' complex product
No it isn't. However, if you are an idiot developer who has
only so far used Access or some other sub-standard product
with pretentions to be a database, I suggest you take some serious
training instead of stuffing up systems for your clients.
Oracle is about making money more than anything,
And IBM and M$ aren't? BWAHAHAHAHA!
but that doesn't make them better
than the others--which I think is the point you and Mark want to make
on a regular basis.
No. The point they make is that there is NO product that
is better than others. As much as this may surprise
the MS and IBM heads.
SQL-Server installs in about 10 minutes, same for the others.
So does Oracle. And SQL Server does NOT install in 10 minutes,
that is a common marketing claim from M$ bullshit artists.
It took 45 minutes to install on my P4-2GHz IBM PC box at work.
Longer than Oracle 9ir2, if you must know. Or UDB 8.
not all RDBMS products function in an operational mode without the
need for anyone trained or untrained to maintain them--except maybe according
to you Oracle needs training, and what does that really say about the
product that it needs so much hand-holding?
Want me to show you some sites that converted to M$ crap
because "it needed no maintenance" and ended up off the air
for weeks on end after TWO (2) days of operation in the new
plastic-fantastic M$ crap?
is the only product worth considering. You also try to suggest that Oracle
is somehow more legitimate for having 'college classes' as if academic
standing is important.
Given that it is the ONLY commercial RDBMS out there that follows
most of the relational db 12 rules, it probably deserves to be better
represented in education institutions. Ah, yes: and its interface
has stayed the same for the last 15 years and it runs the same
across all platforms. Can M$-crap claim the same?
An Oracle Fellow, that would be hilarious.
No more than a MCSE...
Take a few deep breaths of air, and try to calm down, you write like
you're hyper-ventalating.
"Noons" <wi*******@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:73**************************@posting.google.c om... "Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Ze******************@fe44.usenetserver.com>. ..
other database products are easy enough to use that they really don't
require much training, if any, of any kind, formal or informal. In fact,
Are they? Let me see: they don't need SQL, is it?
Ah yes: put me in front of a DB2 or sql server database and I'll
show you how difficult it is to manage or use.
Sorry if I insult you right off the bat, but geez, your statement
is so blatantly wrong. I'm not sure what database products you've
actually had experience with, but it appears you haven't even used
anything but one.
training appears to be more of a necessity for Oracles' complex product
No it isn't. However, if you are an idiot developer who has
only so far used Access or some other sub-standard product
with pretentions to be a database, I suggest you take some serious
training instead of stuffing up systems for your clients.
"Idiot developer" ? Geez you must be in a really bad
situation to demean people so much.
Actually, the necessity for training is a lot like the need
for a help desk for your software. If the software is built
correctly, the user-interface and online help should deter the
need for a lot of 'training' or help-desk support. If your
help desk is inundated with a lot of calls, what does that
say about your software? If you need a lot of training, what
does that say about the design of the interface?
To the credit of Microsoft, they have a pretty darn good database
for the mid-range market, especially for SMB's that can't afford
a DBA. SQL-Server is very robust, takes a lot of abuse, and is
pretty good with a lot of different applications. It can literally
run for years without much attendance by anyone knowing what they
are doing with it--this comes from my own personal use of the
product in our environment and we have done a lot with it. It's
not my favorite, but certainly it's not difficult to use or abuse,
and has rarely if ever failed us. Failures were always user
problems.
Oracle is about making money more than anything,
And IBM and M$ aren't? BWAHAHAHAHA!
Well, we've found that the more of a megalomaniac running the
company, the less the quality of the product. Oracle's culture
is of particular note in that the whole company culture centers
around sales, not product quality. Oracle is living off of a
database that hasn't been re-engineered in what, 10 years?
SQL-Server hasn't been upgraded in at least 5 years, but it is
a better product for a lot of reasons--especially good that it
is at least a lot more like other products. Oracle is vastly
different from the rest. SQL-Server also is making inroads
from the SMB up, and is not trivial in terms of how serious
businesses take it.
but that doesn't make them better
than the others--which I think is the point you and Mark want to make
on a regular basis.
No. The point they make is that there is NO product that
is better than others. As much as this may surprise
the MS and IBM heads.
Well, it appears to me that you have not used anything but one
product ( and I'm not sure which one that is ) .
SQL-Server installs in about 10 minutes, same for the others.
So does Oracle. And SQL Server does NOT install in 10 minutes,
that is a common marketing claim from M$ bullshit artists.
Uh, well, I just installed it last week on one of our systems,
10 minutes tops. Of course on a slower system it might take a
little longer, but geez, a child could install SQL-Server, it's
not that difficult.
It took 45 minutes to install on my P4-2GHz IBM PC box at work.
Longer than Oracle 9ir2, if you must know. Or UDB 8.
Oracle 9i was a pretty immature product the last time I screwed
around with it, I had to create a lot of scripts to manage it,
and its software footprint was over 5 GB of god only knows
what. It was also in a non-windows environment, so YMMV. The
licensing costs were also prohibitive as well. not all RDBMS products function in an operational mode without the
need for anyone trained or untrained to maintain them--except maybe according
to you Oracle needs training, and what does that really say about the
product that it needs so much hand-holding?
Want me to show you some sites that converted to M$ crap
because "it needed no maintenance" and ended up off the air
for weeks on end after TWO (2) days of operation in the new
plastic-fantastic M$ crap?
Heh-heh. Intelligence could be a factor. is the only product worth considering. You also try to suggest that Oracle
is somehow more legitimate for having 'college classes' as if academic
standing is important.
Given that it is the ONLY commercial RDBMS out there that follows
most of the relational db 12 rules, it probably deserves to be better
represented in education institutions. Ah, yes: and its interface
has stayed the same for the last 15 years and it runs the same
across all platforms. Can M$-crap claim the same?
Wow, well, you can't argue with that. It's interesting that you
would want to compare Oracle, quoting "its interface has stayed the
same for the last 15 years", with other products that have advanced
their engines, tools, and interfaces several times over in the same
time period. Interesting. An Oracle Fellow, that would be hilarious.
No more than a MCSE...
Can't argue with that.
Noons wrote: Serge Rielau <sr*****@ca.eye-be-em.com> wrote in message news:<ca**********@hanover.torolab.ibm.com>...
Do you have any data to back up the claim that Siebel's premier
development platform and internal systems ran first DB2 mainframe?
Other than its deranged architectrure? no.
Thought so.
Fact is that when Oracle started competing with their apps vendors those
vendors try as best as they can to distance themselves from Oracle.
No. They try as best as tehy can to ALSO BE AVAILABLE on
Oracle's competitive products. Got the diff?
These two sentences do not conflict with each other. When an App is sold
into a new account (one that doesn't have a natural bias due to an
existing DBMS install - and hence skills) the app vendor has great
influence which DBMS will be sold.
If an App vendor competes with the DBMS vendor for the App space then
every sold DBMS of that vendor funds teh competitive product line.
So it's in the App vendors best interest to _lead_ with another DBMS.
Of course the App vendor will rather sell with any DBMS than not at all
even if the vendor is competition.
That's the mechanics of the market.
Let me see if I can use small enough words so that some
guys can understand:
the fact that a maker ports its product to another
database does NOT mean that the initial database
has stopped being used or supported by this
same maker. Got it, or is the concept too hard to grasp?
I don't think that claim was made anywher in this thread. Certainly not
by me. I don't know how far along Siebel is converting it's development
platform from Oracle to DB2.
Along nowhere. It's not CONVERTING, it's PORTING.
Crap, you people are thick sometimes...
Let's switch examples:
Oracle claims to have (or being in progress of) CONVERTED their
development platform (from Sun ?) to Linux.
DB2 for LUW main development platform is AIX (it probably was CONVERTED
from OS/2 a long time ago).
Neither statement says anything about with OS are supported.
The main development platform is the one that is first tested and hence
usualy first certified because the developers touch it every day. It is
also the one which developers tune against by default because developers
learn it's intricate details.
All other platforms usually end up getting either workarounds or
additional deep integration.
It is really important to not just pick out a single buzz word, rip it
out of context and go ballistic on a different potential meaning.
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Noons wrote: Given that it is the ONLY commercial RDBMS out there that follows
most of the relational db 12 rules, it probably deserves to be better
represented in education institutions.
"Relational db 12 rules"? Care to elaborate?
At the risk of looking stupid: I draw a blank here.
I only know of normal forms, relational algebra and SQL :-(
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
> Noons wrote: Given that it is the ONLY commercial RDBMS out there that follows
most of the relational db 12 rules, it probably deserves to be better
represented in education institutions.
"Relational db 12 rules"? Care to elaborate?
At the risk of looking stupid: I draw a blank here.
I only know of normal forms, relational algebra and SQL :-(
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
The 12 rules are from the famous Computerworld article in the mid 1980's by
Ted Codd when he evaluated DBMS's to see if they were really relational.
I believe that Ingess scored the best (but I don't think they got all 12),
DB2 was respectable, Oracle got fewer points than DB2 (and they would
probably get even fewer points from Codd today since Oracle seems to have
moved away from relational in many respects).
IDMS-R got 0 out of 12, and was exposed at the fraud it was (a network
database with a limited SQL front end that only worked in certain
circumstances).
Serge Rielau wrote: Noons wrote:
Given that it is the ONLY commercial RDBMS out there that follows
most of the relational db 12 rules, it probably deserves to be better
represented in education institutions.
"Relational db 12 rules"? Care to elaborate?
At the risk of looking stupid: I draw a blank here.
I only know of normal forms, relational algebra and SQL :-(
I believe the reference is to Codds 12 Rules - http://www.mit.edu/people/tjw/Codds%20Rules.htm
"Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.eye-be-em.com> wrote in message
news:ca**********@hanover.torolab.ibm.com... Noons wrote: Given that it is the ONLY commercial RDBMS out there that follows
most of the relational db 12 rules, it probably deserves to be better
represented in education institutions.
"Relational db 12 rules"? Care to elaborate?
At the risk of looking stupid: I draw a blank here.
I only know of normal forms, relational algebra and SQL :-(
Stuipid? No, but one can always know more.
Here is Chris Date's take on "different relational models" where the 12
rules are mentioned in passing. http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/622839.htm
More interestingly than those 12 rules however, would be too see which
current DBMS most closely resembles say Data & Darwen's proposals for a
clean relational database system.
Regards
Paul Vernon
Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services
Serge Rielau <sr*****@ca.eye-be-em.com> writes: Noons wrote: Given that it is the ONLY commercial RDBMS out there that follows
most of the relational db 12 rules, it probably deserves to be better
represented in education institutions.
"Relational db 12 rules"? Care to elaborate?
At the risk of looking stupid: I draw a blank here.
I only know of normal forms, relational algebra and SQL :-(
I guess he is talking about Codd's 12 rules, http://www.frick-cpa.com/ss7/Theory_RelationalDB.asp
Dr. Codd was of course an IBM fellow, and the inventor of the relational
model. Based on his relational model, IBM research came up with 'System
R' a relational database research project. IBM's SQL/DS and DB2, Oracle,
were some of the first few commercial rdbms drawing heavily from the
System R research project. http://www.research.ibm.com/resource...passaway.shtml
Regards,
--
Haider
> Oracle got fewer points than DB2 (and they would
probably get even fewer points from Codd today since Oracle seems to have
moved away from relational in many respects).
I've seen you make this point before http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ews.uswest.net
I challenged you at the time, and can't remember if you ever came back
with an example - so exactly what is it in Oracle that you think has
moved away from the relational model ?
Interesting. I would need time to digest that (which I don't) got some
stinging issues to deal with ;-)
But now I'm curious where Noons allegation comes from?
Even if Oracle were to have scored higher in 198x. I hardly see this as
relevant.
I for one was a pimpled teen learning Z80-Assembler at the time and
considered buying the Amiga.
Certainly I don't want to be compared using those old photos ;-)
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
> > Oracle got fewer points than DB2 (and they would probably get even fewer points from Codd today since Oracle seems to
have moved away from relational in many respects).
"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:40**************@comcast.net... I've seen you make this point before
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ews.uswest.net
I challenged you at the time, and can't remember if you ever came back
with an example - so exactly what is it in Oracle that you think has
moved away from the relational model ?
With Oracle (a little more than some other RDBMS's) programmers and users
who access the data want to know (or need to know depending on your point of
view) a little bit about the way the data is physically organized. This
includes things like rowids, certain kinds of indexes, etc. In a pure
relational model, the physical structure of the data is isolated from the
logical structure.
This movement away from a pure relational model is done for performance
reasons or to add features that some programmers may want. Nevertheless
these features (no matter how much people want them) often are in violation
of both Codd's rules and ANSI SQL standards.
Even if you don't take my word on this subject, it was clear that Codd
originally rated Oracle as less relational than DB2 (according to his 12
rules), and Oracle has gone way beyond the SQL standards (and often the
relational model) since that time.
"Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.eye-be-em.com> wrote in message
news:ca**********@hanover.torolab.ibm.com... Interesting. I would need time to digest that (which I don't) got some
stinging issues to deal with ;-)
But now I'm curious where Noons allegation comes from?
Even if Oracle were to have scored higher in 198x. I hardly see this as
relevant.
I for one was a pimpled teen learning Z80-Assembler at the time and
considered buying the Amiga.
Certainly I don't want to be compared using those old photos ;-)
Cheers
Serge
--
Oracle did not score the highest. Ingess scored the highest, followed by
DB2, and then Oracle (there may have been others in between these). IDMS-R
scored the lowest (0).
Noons wrote: Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:<1087308242.153441@yasure>...
Buck ... your protest would be far more genuine if you just acknowledged
the fact that what Noon wrote is correct. These systems all started on
IBM mainframes. Ask me how I know. ;-)
You see: some of these "impartial observers" are sooo ready
to blame everything they don't know or have never seen
on the nearest target...
Completely forgetting of course that this is the Usenet, and
no amount of "shut up orders" from them will work.
Pity it ain't a moderated ng where crap can go on
unchallenged for as long as the "owners" want, eh?
Darn!
One very simple way of this thread stopping: stop posting
false and derogatory remarks about IBM's competitors.
There: simple and easy to understand, even for an IBM marketeer.
Why you post on informix newsgroup? We don't care, do want hear this.
--
Enor
Noons wrote: bu*********@yahoo.com (Buck Nuggets) wrote in message
news:<66**************************@posting.google. com>... wi*******@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message
news:<73**************************@posting.google. com>...
Will you get over it already?
No.
You're filling the newsgroups up with
crap - apparently out of some weird need to downplay IBM's market
share.
No.
Although an analysis of these trends is interesting - it certainly
isn't when subject to this kind of bullshit.
Bullshit will always be pointed out. Wherever it is coming from.
You have looked in mirror? All shit is coming from you and Daneil Morgan.
--
Enor
Universties should not be teaching packaged applications. They should be
teaching computer science. I am aware that Universities teach with DB2,
Oracle, and Windows.
Any University serious about computer science should be teaching with
open source tools (MySQL and Linux) that allow students to see the guts
of how these things actually work. Trying to teach relational database
with a focus on SQL is superficial. The same is true with using a
commercial ERP app.
The students learn much more if they learn relational theory the way
Codd taught it, and the packaged delivery of it (i.e. SQL in commercial
RDBMS's and packaged ERP apps) is something they pick up on their own
time or in summer jobs.
Daniel Morgan wrote: Mark Townsend wrote:
Blair Adamache wrote:
the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has
invested quite a bit to change this.
Hmm - I guess this level of investment to non 'Oracle-centric'
solutions doesn't actually extend to training then - from the SAP web
site
BC535 - Database Administration - DB2 UDB (4.6) - This course is
currently not scheduled.
BC530 - Database Administration - DB2/390 (4.6) - This course is
currently not scheduled.
BC511 - Database Administration - Informix Online (4.6C) - This
course is currently not scheduled.
SAP, Seibel, Peoplesoft etc are not stupid, and are as market driven
as any other company. Their customers want their products on the
Oracle database, and no amount of postulating or hand waving from
other database vendors is going to change that. In fact, there is
significant evidence to show that Oracle's market share under these
packaged applications is actually growing (and indeed, that IBM's
share is declining).
There is zero demand for classes on any of these products at the college
and university level too so I am not surprised.
That seemed like a promising methodology, but I did some google searches
in which the names of frequent posters to this thread were ANDed with
colourful descriptors (wanker) and the results shook my confidence in
the august credentials of our debating club.
BTW, I think it's irrelevant whether and how much Oracle and DB2 have
departed from Codd's 12 rules. We have watched relational databases
displace hierachical and network databases - I think it's appropriate
that the relational model gets stretched to address the needs of the
object-oriented and XML worlds. FWIW, before his death, Codd was pushing
OLAP. Some of the world's most successful software (CICS, IMS) came from
tactical solutions developed by customers and field engineers.
Mark Townsend wrote:
It seems like you're bending the truth a little bit here.
I think my point still stands - the market tends to decide what database
gets chosen under SAP (or indeed, any packaged app vendor), and is not
swayed too much by any contra deals set up between one vendor and another.
Instead of availability of training, consider another metric for what
the market wants - a monster search for jobs
"oracle and sap" returns 1178 hits
"db2 and sap" returns 119 hits
"informix and sap" returns 35 hits
"sqlserver and sap" returns (a surprisingy) 7 hits
"oracle and peoplesoft" - 906 hits
"db2 and peoplesoft" - 143 hits
"informix and peoplesoft" - 75 hits
"sqlserver and peoplesoft" - 14 hits
"oracle and siebel" - 493 hits
"db2 and siebel" - 74 hits
"informix and siebel" - 13 hits
"sqlserver and siebel" - 6 hits
Does this mean that demand for Oracle expertise under a packaged app is
at least 6 times stronger than for the next closest database ?
And, deamnd aside, given there is a significant lack of training
available for anybody to cross skill, does this mean that this will stay
this way for the foreseeable future ?
All questions are purely rhetorical, of course.
But there's your marketshare numbers.
"Paul Vernon" <pa*********@ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:<ca***********@gazette.almaden.ibm.com>... "Serge Rielau" <sr*****@ca.eye-be-em.com> wrote in message
news:ca**********@hanover.torolab.ibm.com... Noons wrote: Given that it is the ONLY commercial RDBMS out there that follows
most of the relational db 12 rules, it probably deserves to be better
represented in education institutions. "Relational db 12 rules"? Care to elaborate?
At the risk of looking stupid: I draw a blank here.
I only know of normal forms, relational algebra and SQL :-(
Stuipid? No, but one can always know more.
Here is Chris Date's take on "different relational models" where the 12
rules are mentioned in passing.
http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/622839.htm
That's a very good article. Given the thrust and tone of the article,
I found it quite entertaining that the numerous links to his book in
the article give "We're sorry, the page you are looking for does not
exists.[SIC]"
More interestingly than those 12 rules however, would be too see which
current DBMS most closely resembles say Data & Darwen's proposals for a
clean relational database system.
I think putting down a database for having non-relational extensions
is silly. It's like saying a sports car isn't any good because it has
a quality radio. But rating which R attributes they support could be
very informative.
Regards
Paul Vernon
Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services
Business Intelligence... dare I say it? OK, I will. That's an
oxymoron.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus. http://stuff.goduck.net/links/aussie_slang.html
Enor P <en****@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2j************@uni-berlin.de>...
You have looked in mirror? All shit is coming from you and Daneil Morgan.
I don't look at mirrors to post on Usenet, unlike morons
like you.
Serge Rielau <sr*****@ca.eye-be-em.com> wrote in message news:<ca**********@hanover.torolab.ibm.com>... Other than its deranged architectrure? no. Thought so.
Plenty enough. Whoever designed that is clearly
from one background...
These two sentences do not conflict with each other. When an App is sold
into a new account (one that doesn't have a natural bias due to an
existing DBMS install - and hence skills) the app vendor has great
influence which DBMS will be sold.
Tell me something new?
If an App vendor competes with the DBMS vendor for the App space then
every sold DBMS of that vendor funds teh competitive product line.
Again, something new?
So it's in the App vendors best interest to _lead_ with another DBMS.
And by _lead_ you understand that it _only_ uses
another DBMS???????
Of course the App vendor will rather sell with any DBMS than not at all
even if the vendor is competition.
That's the mechanics of the market.
That is a moment of genius, Serge!
I don't think that claim was made anywher in this thread. Certainly not
by me.
I think it has clearly been said and implied a number of times.
Oracle claims to have (or being in progress of) CONVERTED their
development platform (from Sun ?) to Linux.
Like they did from VMS to Sequent Unix. And after that to Solaris.
DB2 for LUW main development platform is AIX (it probably was CONVERTED
from OS/2 a long time ago).
Neither statement says anything about with OS are supported.
Exactly.
The main development platform is the one that is first tested and hence
usualy first certified because the developers touch it every day.
Yes.
It is
also the one which developers tune against by default because developers
learn it's intricate details.
Most definitely not, if the maker wants to have any credibility
when it claims portability.
All other platforms usually end up getting either workarounds or
additional deep integration.
That might be the case with difficult to port products like
DB2. It certainly isn't the case with Oracle's RDBMS.
It is really important to not just pick out a single buzz word, rip it
out of context and go ballistic on a different potential meaning.
Exactly.
> This may well send a few blue suiters into apoplexy but I'll list just a few:
Is that an accidental acknowledgment of IBMers having brains?
Don't worry I'm hardy, got to be, living in Canada.
German lesson #1: the meaning of "Einen Bock schiessen"
user defined data types with inheritance and methods
First DB2 Datajoiner, then merged into DB2 UDB V7 for LUW
I did Q.A. for structured types as a student in Almaden 8 years ago
- implemented inline SQL PL for efficient methods - loads of fun,
learning SQL from Don Chamberlin himself.
object-relational views
First in DB2 UDB V5.2 for LUW.
My first born, aren't they beautyful :-)
object tables
First in DB2 UDB V5.2 for LUW.
Oracle 10g still doesn't seem to have subtables. No UNDER clause...
array processing
There you go. Oracle invented the array ;-)
One point for participation.
Of which I am very thankful for all.
You're welcome. I'm glad you like it. IBM put a lot of love into these. http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~...lau:Serge.html
Hi Daniel, my name is Serge, I know first aid, can I help you?
Dispatch we have an _unresponsive_ UC-Wa (Extension) teacher!
Unbelievable!
Either way, I have nothing to add to this thread.
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Noons wrote: Enor P <en****@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2j************@uni-berlin.de>...
Why you post on informix newsgroup? We don't care, do want hear this.
Why don't you complain about EVERYONE else who
continues to x-post there, arsehole?
I'll post wherever I want, whenever I want and
about whatever I want and you can go and shove
your offended replies where the sun doesn't shine.
Got it?
Have you ever noticed how replies, like the one above by Enor, are never
written in Oracle, SQL Server, or Sybase forums? I don't even remember
them in the Informix group before purchased. This is a curiosity of the
blue suiters. They've replaced 'hear no evil' with 'hear nothing
that isn't the party line'.
--
Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Serge Rielau wrote: This may well send a few blue suiters into apoplexy but I'll list just
a few:
Is that an accidental acknowledgment of IBMers having brains?
Don't worry I'm hardy, got to be, living in Canada.
German lesson #1: the meaning of "Einen Bock schiessen"
user defined data types with inheritance and methods
First DB2 Datajoiner, then merged into DB2 UDB V7 for LUW
I did Q.A. for structured types as a student in Almaden 8 years ago
- implemented inline SQL PL for efficient methods - loads of fun,
learning SQL from Don Chamberlin himself.
object-relational views
First in DB2 UDB V5.2 for LUW.
My first born, aren't they beautyful :-)
object tables
First in DB2 UDB V5.2 for LUW.
Oracle 10g still doesn't seem to have subtables. No UNDER clause...
array processing
There you go. Oracle invented the array ;-)
One point for participation.
Of which I am very thankful for all.
You're welcome. I'm glad you like it. IBM put a lot of love into these.
http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~...lau:Serge.html
Hi Daniel, my name is Serge, I know first aid, can I help you?
Dispatch we have an _unresponsive_ UC-Wa (Extension) teacher!
Unbelievable!
Either way, I have nothing to add to this thread.
This wasn't about who got there first. It was about non-relational
extensions to the relational engine. If you are proudly proclaiming
that DB2 is also non-relational ... then it leads to wondering why
the person that challenged Mark Townsend did so at all doesn't it.
--
Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
"Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<aF**************@fe40.usenetserver.com>... Take a few deep breaths of air, and try to calm down, you write like
you're hyper-ventalating.
You have no idea whatsoever how I write, so stop that crap
before I turn it around on you.
Sorry if I insult you right off the bat, but geez, your statement
is so blatantly wrong. I'm not sure what database products you've
actually had experience with, but it appears you haven't even used
anything but one.
Really? And your claim that my statement is wrong is based
and explained by your "deduction" of my past experience?
Care to make sense next time?
"Idiot developer" ? Geez you must be in a really bad
situation to demean people so much.
No. I just call them by the name they should have.
Actually, the necessity for training is a lot like the need
for a help desk for your software. If the software is built
correctly, the user-interface and online help should deter the
need for a lot of 'training' or help-desk support.
Actually, you don't have a CLUE about how infrastructure
products are developed or used. Here is a hint: databases
are NOT to be used by end users. Unless they are called
Access and are a joke of a toy. Got it?
If your
help desk is inundated with a lot of calls, what does that
say about your software?
If you need a lot of training, what
does that say about the design of the interface?
Probably that it is used a lot?
a DBA. SQL-Server is very robust, takes a lot of abuse, and is
pretty good with a lot of different applications.
Funny. So is Oracle. Or just about any other database you might
want to mention... See how cretin your comparisons are?
It can literally
run for years without much attendance by anyone knowing what they
are doing with it--this comes from my own personal use of the
product in our environment and we have done a lot with it.
Your "personal use"? And that is presumably more credible than anyone
else's use? Here is mine: Oracle-based apps that run for 8 years
ON NT without intervention from a DBA or any other person. How's that
for size?
It's
not my favorite, but certainly it's not difficult to use or abuse,
and has rarely if ever failed us. Failures were always user
problems.
Why are you blaming users?
Well, we've found that the more of a megalomaniac running the
company, the less the quality of the product.
Yeah, that sounds about right for Microsoft...
Oracle's culture
is of particular note in that the whole company culture centers
around sales, not product quality.
Load of bullshit.
Oracle is living off of a
database that hasn't been re-engineered in what, 10 years?
Why don't you get your facts right instead of just regurgitating
the CRAP that goes for markteting information in your neck
of the woods? You don't have the foggiest how many times
Oracle has re-engineered their product, do you? Here is a clue:
try 5 times.
SQL-Server hasn't been upgraded in at least 5 years,
Some would say since it got bought from Sybase...
but it is
a better product for a lot of reasons
Of course. "lot of reasons" is such a credible
argument...
--especially good that it
is at least a lot more like other products.
Which ones?
Oracle is vastly
different from the rest.
You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, do you?
:)
SQL-Server also is making inroads
from the SMB up, and is not trivial in terms of how serious
businesses take it.
Once more, in English this time?
Well, it appears to me that you have not used anything but one
product ( and I'm not sure which one that is ) .
I have. And it is clear to me you have no clue.
Uh, well, I just installed it last week on one of our systems,
10 minutes tops. Of course on a slower system it might take a
little longer, but geez, a child could install SQL-Server, it's
not that difficult.
"slower system", a P4 2GHz? What next does it need?
Oracle 9i was a pretty immature product the last time I screwed
around with it,
"screwed around" is the operative term here.
I had to create a lot of scripts to manage it,
and that is a demonstration of how difficult it is to install?
and its software footprint was over 5 GB of god only knows
what.
You don't get omelettes without cracking eggs. Funny enough,
ES is running in my 256Mb notebook and using 1Gb of disk
space for ALL the software. Must be a "weird" 9i that you're
"screwing around" with...
And given that M$ themselves recommended as the main
solution to ANY NT problem for years: "just add memory",
it appears your claim is worth just about as much as
all the other conclusions.
licensing costs were also prohibitive as well.
Funny. It cost me US$100.
Heh-heh. Intelligence could be a factor.
Definitely. Just to show how much is needed to make
the "easy product" run...
Wow, well, you can't argue with that. It's interesting that you
would want to compare Oracle, quoting "its interface has stayed the
same for the last 15 years", with other products that have advanced
their engines, tools, and interfaces several times over in the same
time period. Interesting.
Once more, the total lack of db knowledge of your argument shows up.
Databases are infra-structure software. As such, you do NOT want
to have them change their interface (SQL) with each new revision.
The maintenance impact would be enormous. So, their interface (SQL)
better stay the same. You are once again confusing toy products
with a "multimedia-rich gui" front-end with infra-structure products.
"Mark A" <no****@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<Sg****************@news.uswest.net>... With Oracle (a little more than some other RDBMS's) programmers and users
who access the data want to know (or need to know depending on your point of
view) a little bit about the way the data is physically organized. This
includes things like rowids, certain kinds of indexes, etc.
You must be day-dreaming if you think this will stick.
What an utter load of crap.
In a pure
relational model, the physical structure of the data is isolated from the
logical structure.
And Oracle does not conform to this but DB2 does? Want me to start
quoting the differences in DB2 implementation of even the most basic
things,like its different data types across platforms?
This movement away from a pure relational model is done for performance
reasons or to add features that some programmers may want. Nevertheless
these features (no matter how much people want them) often are in violation
of both Codd's rules and ANSI SQL standards.
What a load fo bullshit. Codd never required restrictions on
ANY features of a database, provided the basics were there. That is
the reason DB2 needs one SQL manual for EVERY single platform it
runs on.
Even if you don't take my word on this subject, it was clear that Codd
originally rated Oracle as less relational than DB2 (according to his 12
rules),
Yes he did. Comparing Oracle V4 to DB2 on mainframes. Since then,
a LOT has changed.
and Oracle has gone way beyond the SQL standards (and often the
relational model) since that time.
Proof of this crap?
Serge Rielau <sr*****@ca.eye-be-em.com> wrote in message news:<ca**********@hanover.torolab.ibm.com>... But now I'm curious where Noons allegation comes from?
Allegation? Let me see: I made a STATEMENT, which you now
turn into an "allegation"? Here it is again: Oracle is the database
that most matches the 12 rules. As in CURRENTLY. Care to dispute that?
Even if Oracle were to have scored higher in 198x. I hardly see this as
relevant.
I couldn't care less what Oracle scored then. What it scores
NOW is what matters. Much better than anything else.
Certianly better than SQL Server or any of that crap.
And there are another 12 rules to contend with, not just
Codd's. But I won't go there, for fear of confusing
the folks. Looks like serious, fact based argumentation is not
their forte...
I for one was a pimpled teen learning Z80-Assembler at the time and
considered buying the Amiga.
Pity. I had been in IT then for > 10 years. You'd have enjoyed
using DB2 then...
Certainly I don't want to be compared using those old photos ;-)
Old photos? You see, this is where you gotta start getting real.
Relational principles and rules/laws are NOT photos to be discarded
as soon as the fad goes. These are facts, theorems, mathematics.
They are timeless. They got no "version" to hide under. Just like
gravity hasn't changed since Newton. It's called a scientific
base, something most modern software sadly lacks.
"Paul Vernon" <pa*********@ukk.ibmm.comm> wrote in message news:<ca***********@gazette.almaden.ibm.com>...
Here is Chris Date's take on "different relational models" where the 12
rules are mentioned in passing.
http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/622839.htm
He's also got his own... For rdbms that claimto be "distributed".
More interestingly than those 12 rules however, would be too see which
current DBMS most closely resembles say Data & Darwen's proposals for a
clean relational database system.
Care to provide a link to these? This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: rkusenet |
last post by:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1820667,00.asp
The database market grew by 10.3 percent in 2004, fueled largely by hunger for business
intelligence and analytics, according to numbers...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and...
| |
