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

On 2005-03-04, DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:
> Gert van der Kooij wrote:
>
>> In article <6q7f21prtalrm2ukrte4jsm5fdjsk1so92_at_4ax.com>, Sybrand
>> Bakker (postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl) says...
>>
>>>On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 00:01:18 +0100, Gert van der Kooij
>>><gert_at_invalid.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>No. Oracle comes with it's own Virtual Operating System on board.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Which I guess is almost the same as an operating system layer?
>> I don't know how this is organized in the DB2 code but logically it
>> should be the same as Oracle's VOS.
>>
>> Kind regards, Gert
>
> Always the same. I can take a PL/SQL package written on *NIX and

        An interpreted language.

> run it on anything from a mainframe to Windows to a Mac and no code
> change is required. Export from any one and import into any other.
> Transport a tablespace from any one and attach it to any other.

        Data generated by the application.         

        Of course all three of these should be portable across operating systems and architectures. Oracle is in full control of the applications generating the input and the applications reading it.

        This is far less interesting than Cobol or JPEGs being universal formats.

-- 
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club!                           |||
                                                                   / | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!