Re: Oracle History??

From: Joel Garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: 25 Nov 2002 17:48:20 -0800
Message-ID: <91884734.0211251748.43bbe98@posting.google.com>

afilonov_at_yahoo.com (Alex Filonov) wrote in message news:<336da121.0211241422.7c22b8f7_at_posting.google.com>...

> joel-garry_at_home.com (Joel Garry) wrote in message news:<91884734.0211221727.cba3d32_at_posting.google.com>...
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<WSHC9.80398$g9.226171_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > > Looks perfect, Mark. Thanks so much.
> > >
> > > I'd thank Richard, too, of course, but the signal to noise (ie, Oracle to
> > > Bowie) ratio was too high to make much sense of it all. ;-)
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/068816353X/qid=1038014234/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5341632-1172907?v=glance&s=books
> >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > HJR
> > >
> > > "Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend_at_attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:BA00777C.2C1C%markbtownsend_at_attbi.com...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.osborne.com/products/0072192798/0072192798_ch01.pdf
> >
> > Supply _Change_ Management? Don't they mean Supply _Chain_
> > Management?
> >
> > Also, they put in qualifiers, like "the first dbms to work on
>
> > Mainframes and Minicomputers," and "the first SQL" whatever, as if
> > that is some kind of great thing. In the early to mid '80s there were
> > several superior languages to SQL, and Oracle was by no means the best
>
> Like what? I'm apparently becoming old and can't remember any DB language
> superior to SQL. BTW, IBM was actually first to create relational DB

User-11 on PDP's, and it's various children and grandchildren.

InTouch.

Datatrieve, for that matter.

Those are just ones I happen to know. I'm sure there are more that I don't.

Even the SQL creators recognized that it was only half-a-standard:

http://ftp.digital.com/pub/DEC/SRC/technical-notes/SRC-1997-018-html/sqlr95.html

> based on SQL (project R), but initially they decided against developing
> in further into marketable product. AFAIK Larry Ellison was working for
> IBM then... May be he's got some ideas.

Yeah, I'm sure he went "Wow! Let's standardize on SQL as a data interchange language!" Not.

>
> > system for any particular purpose. Like IBM, the greatness, if you
> > want to call it that, was in the marketing and financials. So what if
> > Star could join db's in New York and SF - in the mid-80's, I saw a
> > language that could join between different DBMS's!
>
> SQL can do it. There is no restrictions on phisical location of tables
> in the language definition. True, it wasn't realized until Oracle 6
> (I might be wrong, correct me if so), but it's not language restriction,
> it was an implementation restriction.

Sorry, I don't know the syntax for SQL*Plus to open an Ingres database. However, I do know the syntax for a language that could open an Oracle database and an Ingres database and join the tables together - at least if I root around in the basement and find the manuals from 1986.

>
> >
> > Harumph.
> >
> > jg

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/sat/business/news_1b23bauder.html

Received on Mon Nov 25 2002 - 19:48:20 CST