Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

Peter,

Peter wrote:

> Larry,
>
> Thanks for admitting the differences in DB2 code for AS/400 ,
> OS/390 and UNIX, Linux and Windows. DB2 on Main Frames
> is solid and stable system. On non-main frames system, company
> can run DB2 at business risk.
>

Run DB2 at business risk? Gimme a break. You either don't realize what you are saying, or you do and your being deceptive. There are plenty of companies running large-scale applications vital to their business on DB2 Intel/UNIX/Linux. You should take a look at the IBM data management web pages. Applications and database sizes that are much larger than the competition can even think about right now. And just to clarify, my "admission" as you put it was that there are beneficial differences between the DB2 codebase on Intel/UNIX/Linux and DB2 on AS/400 and OS/390. NOT that there are differences in the codebase between DB2 on Intel and UNIX and Linux. It's interesting that sw vendors who make databases that do have OS/390 versions but which DON'T have these differences can't seem to be very successful on the 390 platform.

>
> DB2 is a simple database without any built in procedure language or
> message system. DB2 has no message system, you need IBM MQ
> series and 5-10 IT staff of MQ series administrator and
> developers. In Oracle and SQL Server, it is all built into the
> database. When you buy the product, you buy it in one bundle.
> Oracle has only one listener for both database and messaging.
> MQ admin. has to set channel and listener separately and DB2
> Admin. and MQ admin. are two separate job areas.

Huh? No built in procedure language? DB2 is the only database with a procedure language based on the ANSI PSM standard.

IBM and Oracle have two distinctly different strategies. IBM chooses to allow the customer to have choice in selection of best-of-breed products that integrate with DB2 vs. Oracle's strategy is to embed everything into the database and lock the customer in to features/functions that may not be best-of-breed. Most people who want to do queuing do it with MQ.

>
>
> Oracle or SQL Server DBA does the job of 5-10 IBM MQ
> Administrators and developers also.
>
> I don't want to give a list of companies that have gone out of
> business because competitor was running Oracle or MySQL
> for that matter.

Please do ... I'd be very interested in backup to this claim.

>
>
> Many companies are trying DB2 on non Main frames system
> because of political pressure in the IT department from the
> Main frames group. If you read my first mail carefully, I am
> saying it will take years for IBM DB2 to mature on non Main
> frame systems.
>

I don't know where you're getting this from. Nobody buys databases because of political pressure from I/T. I/T budgets have to be funded by application areas and the business. People buy databases because applications and the business drive them.

>
> Please wait and see DB2 instance all of sudden disappearing from
> your production system with a simple select usage. I am not
> anti DB2 but I am telling you the fact.
>
> Peter
>

Peter ... if this has really happened to you and there is nothing you could have done to avoid it, that is unfortunate indeed. Sometimes sw products have defects (if that is what turns out to be the case here). Are you gonna tell me that this kind of thing has never happened with any other sw product before? Why don't you keep us posted on what the problem turned out to be. And why don't you provide us with some more details on the problem?

Larry

>
>
> Larry Edelstein <lsedels_at_us.ibm.com> wrote in message news:<3F6350F3.2946747D_at_us.ibm.com>...
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > Code Bases:
> >
> > The code base across Intel, UNIX, Linux (including with the partitioning
> > option) is absolutely the same. There are some differences between the
> > Intel/UNIX/Linux code base and the AS/400 and DB2/390 code bases ... but
> > mostly in areas that a customer would actually want them to be
> > different. For example, there must be slightly different code in order
> > to exploit Windows threads/security vs. 390 Sysplex/Workload Manager.
> > Key point: The DDL, DML, and APIs are virtually the same ... or very
> > close, with any differences of note within the DDL ... because there are
> > different physical storage structures on the 390. That's the nature of
> > the beast when you have a database that is optimized to run so well on
> > platforms that are vastly different.
> >
> > My own opinion is even if there are differences, why make an issue out
> > of it? Suppose your shop or company is Windows/UNIX-only and doesn't
> > even have a mainframe? In that case, any differences would not even
> > enter into the business case for or against a database.
> >
> > In terms of the C compiler, there is no requirement for the C compiler
> > to reside on a production machine. At the current point-in-time, you
> > need a C compiler on a development machine ... and as long as it has the
> > same os and db2 levels ... the SQL Stored procedure executables can be
> > moved to any other box with those same levels. And ... I believe that
> > IBM is working towards elimination of the C Compiler completely. Just
> > like I'm sure that there are requirements against Oracle's db that they
> > are working to address also.
> >
> > Larry Edelstein
> >
> > Daniel Morgan wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel ... again ... please express your opinions :-). But please do
> > > some research
> > >
> > >> and know your facts. On this post, there is almost no point where
> > >> you have a valid
> > >> case.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> 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)
> > >>
> > >> Larry Edelstein
> > >>
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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 - 23:42:41 CEST