Re: IBM Debunks Oracle's MultiVersion Read Consistency ?

Comment interspersed below:

Jeremy Rickard wrote:

> Noons <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:<Xns93653C8450E9Tokenthis_at_210.49.20.254>...
> > Following up on Daniel Morgan, 21 Apr 2003:
> >
> > >
> > > I'll take Oracle's write once run anywhere over DB2's write different code
> > > for every operating system and platform model without any database security
> > > any time.
> > >
> >
> > Ouch! But true...
>
> Well, more like a half-truth. There are 4 remaining code bases: (1)
> DB2 for VM/VSE, no longer being developed much - but Oracle server
> doesn't run on it anyway; (2) DB2 UDB for AS/400, which Oracle server
> doesn't run on anyway; (3) DB2 UDB for OS/390, which Oracle server
> *does* run on, apparently (although personally I've yet to come across
> anyone running Oracle on a mainframe);

Well you have now. In fact if you had contact with anyone at Boeing Commercial Airplane Group would could find many people with that experience. Your personal experience is apparently not so broad that you be drawing conclusions from it.

> (4) DB2 UDB for Multiplatforms,
> which runs with a shared code base on Windows, Linux, multiple UNIX
> flavours and even Linux for OS/390.
>
> It's the multiplatforms product that's been making the big inroads
> into Oracle market share. The problem for Oracle is that IBM has a
> genuinely comparable product, selling at a fraction of the price,
> using a common code base across all the platforms that Oracle runs on.
> Database server sales are still a massive proportion of Oracle's
> turnover, so price matching would go down like a ton of bricks with
> Wall Street. Better it seems to keep the high prices and attempt to
> slow loss of market share by smearing the opposition.
>
> Regards database security, yes all versions of DB2 use the operating
> system to authenticate users, and I see nothing really wrong with that
> - other than the fact that it then lets Oracle tout the obvious
> consequent absence of any "security awards" as though there is some
> sort of problem.
>
> Jeremy Rickard

Certainly Tivoli, etc. can be used to secure DB2. But it is a separate product from a separate company requiring a separate license ... and raises the cost of ownership significantly. The database, in and of itself, has no security. And in a Windows environment that is a significant issue.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)