Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:10:18 -0700
Message-ID: <1063487406.859386_at_yasure>

Mark A wrote:

Then please corrrect me. My recollection from a few years
ago when I was doing some DB2 work was that the code
base for Windows was different from that for AIX was different
    

>from that for AS/400 was different from that for VM was different
>from that for MVS was different from that for Z-series requiring
  

recompilation with a C compiler on the production box. And that
the C compiler was not included with the database but was an extra expense.
    

I'd appreciate a clarification if this is no longer true or my memory is
    

faulty.

You did not address the questions to me, but I will answer them.

The DB2 code base for Windows, Linux and Unix is 90% the same.

The MVS, VM , and AS/400 products are all different, which is not really a
factor since either Oracle doesn't have a product on these platforms, or the
if they do, the Oracle product is universally known to stink on these
platforms.

If you write stored procedures in C, you will need a compiler, but not sure
if it needs to be on the production machine.  But if you say so, I would
concede that point. Stored procedures may also be written in SQL, which is
the preferred method. With regards to the total cost of ownership, I think
that you will find DB2 cheaper or the same as Oracle even with the compiler
expense.

  

When you say "is 90% the same" isn't that just saying they are different without saying it? Sort of like trying to say you are 90%  half-pregnant.

I don't think anyone should debate TOC as there are no standards by which to judge the accuracy of the statement. Anyone that paid list price for any hardware or software should buy their next car from me.

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

Received on Sat Sep 13 2003 - 23:10:18 CEST