Re: Good News for MS Windows users: Your favorite database is here..

On Sun, 20 May 2001 13:02:23 -0400, Larry <lsedels_at_us.ibm.com> wrote:

>include Intel's VI Architecture support for standards-based clustering in Intel server
>environments, integration with AIX HACMP, Sun Solstice and Microsoft Cluster Server for
>scalability, and use of Windows and Kerberos security and multi-threading schemes.

In what way, shape or format does one need AIX-HACMP to scale a NT solution? Other than locking one into an IBM solution ad-infinitum?

>The code base for DB2 UDB for AS/400 and for DB2 UDB for OS/390 and z/OS are two
>distinct code bases, and distinct from DB2 UDB on UNIX, Windows and OS/2 platforms.

With different functionality and capabilities. Something you will never find with *ANY* port of ORACLE. They all work exactly the same. And they don't need additional products from ORACLE's range to provide "scalability" and/or performance. I don't expect you to understand why this is important, but believe me it's the number one reason why ORACLE is where it is now.

>Because of the distinct hardware and OS architectures on these platforms, and because

You mean the hardware that runs AIX is not entirely distinct from the one that runs NT? Or Solaris? So why the no-difference there and the difference in AS400 and mainframes? Could it be because the darn things are so different that it's virtually impossible to write portable software for each of them? Familiar with the term "proprietary technology"? Something this industry has been trying to get away from for the last 20 years and IBM is now "quietly" re-introducing? As if we don't well remember what it was like 15 years ago?

>are IBM platforms with which we can more deeply and tightly integrate, we have different
>internal architectures for DB2. This provides much better performance and scalability
>than a
>porting strategy such as that of other vendors, particularly on S/390 and eServer
>zSeries.

It also ties the customers to your architecture and OS environment, but that's a little side-efect we won't discuss here, eh?

>OS/2 but also on OS/390 and z/OS. Our new standards-based SQL Procedures Language for
>writing stored procedures and our cross-platform Stored Procedure Builder are further
>evidence of cross-platform compatibility.

Eh-aw! Like, this is something new, ground-breaking and never done before.... Jeez.

>DB2 on UNIX, Windows and OS/2. Precisely the same functional capability is offered in
>the
>four packages on these platforms: Personal Edition, Workgroup Edition, Enterprise
>Edition,
>Enterprise-Extended Edition. This is not the case for the "competition".

Bullshit! Sorry, I don't want to sound vulgar but that deserves only this answer... Both assertions.

>It is our view that a 100% porting plan cannot optimize performance for any particular
>platform. To not take advantage of underlying system strengths would be doing a huge
>disservice to customers.

Yet despite all that "optimization", you people can hardly compete on performance on the same platform with ORACLE. You have to resort to the "TCO" crap, which basically means you're willing to trade less revenue for market share. One wonders what sort of "optimizations" we talking about here...

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Sat Jul 21 2001 - 18:04:33 CDT