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

Mark A apparently said,on my timestamp of 4/03/2005 6:31 PM:

> I don't know how many time I have to say this:

You know, with me at least 1000 times: I learn slowly. Then again, I don't forget fast either... ;)

> DB2 for AS/400, DB2 for VM, and DB2 for z/OS are all different code bases,
> and they are all different from DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows (which has
> its own single code base).

I hope I can recall this single sentence many times. It is very correct.

> run on AS/400, VM, and z/OS. They certainly are not. I never recommended
> that one develop on one platform and run on the other (unless it is within
> the Linux, UNIX, Windows family).

Good point. I wish IBM's own literature makers and marketing read it. They certainly seem to believe it's all interchangeable. Just like voodoo magic, if I may paraphrase my friend HJR...

> But I don't understand how someone can complain about incompatibility with
> DB2 on other platforms, if Oracle does not even run on those platforms
> (AS/400 and VM) or is not widely used on the z/OS platform where DB2 for
> z/OS is dominant (even though Oracle does run on z/OS).

I don't think anyone was complaining about compatibility or lack thereof with other platforms. The problem is that it has been claimed many times in the past they're all the same and (implicitly) compatible. They aren't, as we all know.
UDB in *nix/Windoze certainly is, but then again: UDB != DB2, although of course they share the same design principles, maker and (general) direction.
I think the objection has always been to past claims from IBM (don't make me go find them, because they ARE there!) that they were the same.

Everyone here knows Oracle doesn't run on AS400. Come to think of it I don't think ANY third party infrastructure software runs on AS400: the darn thing is pre-history as architectures go and no one wants to touch it! Even stuff like Lansa is still - down to earth and looking at the source code - good old RPG...

As for Oracle running on the large iron, I disagree with your opinions but respect them. I defer in that area to Daniel, he's got much more recent practice than I: mine is mostly from Hitachi/National PCM's and MVS/XA.

> One interesting thing not mentioned previously is that DB2 for Linux does
> run on IBM mainframes, albeit not on z/OS. Some people run SAP on that Linux
> platform on IBM mainframe hardware.

What's with this "run Linux in the mainframe" fixation of IBM? Last h/w platform I'd EVER consider for Linux would be a mainframe!...

Sounds to me like another example of "me too", to make mainframes look like "modern" platforms? Or is it just an exercise in returning value to those who invested heavily in the technology and don't want to have to ditch it for smaller iron?

> Maybe now this thread should return to the questions asked by the OP.

C'mon, we've only started and we're already agreeing? Where's the "fighting spirit" of the Usenet? Traditions are to be upheld, my cyberfriend! :D

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam