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

On Sun, 20 May 2001 18:10:51 -0400, Larry <lsedels_at_us.ibm.com> wrote:

>the core of IBM's strategy. Answer me a question ... why does the "competition" have no
>presence on the AS/400 platform and very little presence on the 390 platform?

Yet, the "competition" has managed to "port" *EXACTLY* the same product to 390 platform as they have on NT, something IBM hasn't been able to do with their own stuff?

As for presence, the whole industry knows the AS400 is a completely closed environment entirely dominated by IBM. The day anyone tries even so much as develop a line of code that is not IBM-sanctioned is the day you guys do a "Microsoft" and start delivering releases every 6 weeks, all of them breaking all third party products. So let's not even mention the AS400, OK? That entire product line is the biggest sham this industry has had to endure in 4 decades! Don't confuse technical achievement with sales volume: the two are not in anyway related.

> Could it be
>that in order to be successful on any given platform, the database must be architected
>and optimized for that platform?

Obviously not, given the tremendous success of ORACLE in no less than thirty different platforms along the years? Some of which DB2 wouldn't have a hope in hell to be ported to?

> Do you know much about AS/400s and S/390s?

Don't even try to play the "technical knowledge" card with me, buddy. I sincerely advise you not to. I was a 360 Assembler programmer when you were still a glimpse in your mother's eye.

> Do you
>realize how different they are from an underlying platform perspective, from an OS
>perspective, from a physical/operational perspective? Do you really think that the exact
>same code can provide exploitation of say ... parallel sysplex and also be truly
>optimized to exploit NT Threads and Solaris Semaphores?

Why not? ORACLE seems to be able to run equally well and as scalable on something as different as a single CPU NT box and a 64 CPU Solaris E10000. When was the last time you tried to saturate 12 CPU's on a Sequent with a single DB2 parallel query? I used to do that 8 years ago in ORACLE V7, when UDB didn't even exist! Greased lightening (for that time).

What exactly is so special about the "sysplex", other than the fancy name for a non-symetrical multiprocessor architecture? You see, some of us where doing SMP in 1968 with Univac 1110 mainframes. When you guys were still punching cards and rewinding tapes manually!

>different engines than their 757s? Or is it possible ... that in each of these cases
>(including IBM), the manufacturer chose the best possible solution and that is why it is
>successful!

Load of crap. In all those cases, what has been choosen is the cheapest way of making a huge profit. Nothing wehatsoever to do with efficiency or performance!

>
>Hardly ... have you forgotten IMS ... still successful and growing, by the way? Or VSAM?

'scuse me? Since when is VSAM a database? Pretty slack definition right there. Ah yes, DB2 on mainframes uses VSAM. That's OK, although when was the last time you saw VSAM on UNIX or NT? Long overdue, BTW! :-)

>
>What about OPS? Have the parallel DML limitations when using OPS been addressed? Is OPS
>the same codebase as regular Oracle?

Absolutely. Just another library that gets installed or not depending on what you paid for. You see, you really should learn a bit more about other products rather than rely on "competitive product sheets". Written by marketing morons who understand exactly nothing about this industry.

>Funny ... they have been mentioned at Oracle user
>groups and from what I remember, they were documented in the Oracle pubs. Please correct
>me if I'm wrong. I would prefer to be up to date with the latest information.

Chief, we all know what you guys are fishing for. I suggest you (IBM) fork out for a complete set of ORACLE manuals (latest releases preferably) and spend a considerable amount of time reading them.

But you will have to forget the usual IBM brainwash and learn a bit about the history of computing, databases and OS's. The one written outside of the IBM closed environment. It might do wonders to your marketing ability.

One piece of free advice: forget the "portability" and "compatibility" drawcards for DB2. The entire industry will laugh in your faces if you try to attack ORACLE on that base. There are much better ways of doing it than those two. You brushed on at least two.

Please don't assume immediately that I'm against DB2 providing some competition to ORACLE. In fact, I welcome that. There are many features in ORACLE that have not been introduced over the years because they didn't need to, the competition was more interested in glitz than efficiency.

With IBM in the arena, we might finally see some action from ORACLE in getting the darn things out. If nothing else, it will provide some much needed real competition in this area of the industry. Sybase and MS are passee and dirt easy to deal with compared to IBM. Roll on the open season!

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 - 18:04:35 CDT