Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Adjusting to DB2

Re: Adjusting to DB2

From: Noons <>
Date: 26 Oct 2005 21:09:39 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Serge Rielau wrote:

> I didn't say "can't". Let's use Oracle as an example.

Oh boy, I can see a bad example coming up...

> Oracle DBMS is supported on many platforms, right?


> Let's have a look at Oracle Collaboration suite. it sues Oracle DBMS
> (even shares the same Release numbers as far as I can tell).

What on earth has collaborative suite got to do with ancillary products to Oracle dbms?

When will the IBM marketing loonies finally learn that Oracle does not sell ONLY dbms-related products?

The example you proposed is EXACTLY the same as me asking you why isn't Websphere delivered at the same time as DB2 given that it's a product sold by IBM!

Do you get the extreme incorrectness of such an argument? Do you understand why it is equally extremelly incorrect to argue with collaborative suite, financials, peoplesoft, rdb and oas being "bundled" as part of oracle's dbms? They are not a part of the DBMS, never were, never will be.

> The point being that there are Oracle products which apparently are not
> supported on all platforms. No Mac, no AIX (huh?).

Yes. Like there are products from IBM that do not run on the Atari. Who cares when it comes to DB2? What the heck has that got to do with the dbms, be it db2 or oracle?

> So Oracle isn't teh same across all platforms because Oracle
> Collaboration suite isn't supported on Mac?

Here we go on with the loonie examples. Read above.

> Clearly encapsulation was invented by Oracle the day after they asked
> for access for IBM's SQL codes. I don't know why the porting team of
> Oracle is so big. Ask Mark T. or Tom Kyte.

Nope. Encapsulation pre-dates Oracle by a good 10 years. Given that Oracle made it to market a lot earlier than db1-luw, I'd say you're spot-on again!
Ah well, another crash... :)

As for porting teams being large, we better not discuss team sizes where IBM is involved!

> That's what coding standards are for.

Nothing to do with coding standards.

> And that's what nighly builds
> across all platforms are there for.

Core, the overnight-batch mentality all over again...

> DB2 engine development is done on Windows, AIX, Linux and Sun (inherited
> machined from Informix).

Nope. Not "on". "for". There is a fundamental difference there.

> In general compilers upgrades don't cause that many problems.

Childish, I know, but: Bwahahahah!

> Apparently so. This isn't the day when the first C++ compiler rolled
> out. C/C++ is quite mature.

Like heck it is. Check out gcc or any of the other Linux compilers. Same goes for HP, AIX and a few assorted others: patches every month. That's not stable in any language!

> SWG is different. IBM SWG presently is the #2 sofware vendor by revenue
> You don't get there by being inefficient.

No. You get there by flogging and milking the mainframe cow for as long as possible. That's why it is "by revenue". Take the mainframe proprietary and closed environment out and it's piddly. By any measure.

> What percentage of customers use Spatial on Oracle or whatever passed
> for the video and image extenders?

No idea and it wouldn't affect me in the least. It's got nothing to do with Oracle dbms being usable or not. Unlike not being able to run a HA system because I didn't buy the HA "extensions"...

> Also separately pricing is not
> anything new to an Oracle person. Range partitioning is priced
> separately in Oracle last I recall, and of course RAC.

wrong. but then again what can I say: it's IBM's marketing information, it must be right. After all, they must have heard it on the Usenet therefore it must be true...

> Posters in thsi NG have gone through great length describing their
> attempts to work around having to buy the licence.


> Whenever one compares prices one must consider all the needs.


> Making a decision based on teh bare-bones price and being surpised by
> the "hidden fees" is as bad as having to pay for features one will never
> use.

Particularly when the hidden fees make the product more expensive than the one with the features that "never get used". But of course those somehow never get added to the "TCO"...

> >> 3. DB2 Editions
> >> Not all editions are supported on all platforms with all features.
> >> Of course!
> > I beg your pardon? Why on Earth NOT?
> > (please, don't waste our collective time with the usual
> > marketing nonsense about what each OS can support or not.
> > K?)
> No, nothing about what can be supported. Editions are picing schemes.
> I would be curious to know whether anyone ever tried to order
> Oracle SE 1 for Linux/zOS or HP OpenVMS Alpha

It's not the editions. It's the "features" that are the problem. All the features of EE Oracle are supported in ALL platforms where EE is available. Same for SE or any other edition. Period. No ifs, no buts. Received on Wed Oct 26 2005 - 23:09:39 CDT

Original text of this message