Re: DB2 UDB or Oracle (who has better support)

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:06:52 -0800
Message-ID: <1109898223.74847@yasure>

Gert van der Kooij wrote:

> In article <1109882435.448360_at_yasure>, DA Morgan
> (damorgan_at_x.washington.edu) says...
>

>>ak_tiredofspam_at_yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>How about the fact that DB2 has a different code base
>>>
>>>for different operating systems
>>>...<<
>>>
>>>Is that a fact?
>>
>>It is indeed. IBM'ers do their best to weave and bob like a boxer
>>taking punches but avoid acknowleding it but it is a simple fact
>>of life. DB2 is an excellent product on the mainframe. The OS/400
>>implementation is a completely different code base. The UNIX is
>>another, etc.
>>
>>A simple check of how many characters for a table name will be
>>sufficient to convince almost anyone other than Serge who works
>>for IBM and codes DB2. He's a nice guy but doesn't want to lose
>>his job so don't ask him to cry uncle.
>>

>
>
> You're mixing up things. As Serge and others always said the
> Unix/Linux/Windows codebase is the same, only the lowest operating
> system layer is different. I guess this is the same for Oracle. Also
> there are some extenders which are not available on all operating
> systems.
>
> Differences arise when talking about DB2/zOS and DB2/AS400, these are
> both different codebases and have different administration tools,
> tuning options etc.
>
> The table name length difference is a difference between DB2/LUW and
> the others, not between DB2/Windows and DB2/Linux or DB2/Aix etc.
>
> Kind regards, Gert

No it isn't the same thing. It may well be true that the *NIX and Windows code bases are the same. But the differences going to other code bases can be substantially the same as changing products as recoding and retesting may be required.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Thu Mar 03 2005 - 19:06:52 CST