Re: db2 vs oracle

> Actually to get you back on track, read through Larry's book, the words are
> in the book, not quoting, but close enough, Oracle is more about
> applications than databases. ( the book is "SOFTWAR" )

And IBM is more about hardware than databases. Apparently you don't have an actual point so you just made one up.

> As far as my experiences with Oracle, it is the most expensive database
> product on the market, not to mention one of the most complicated.

Which speaks volumes about your experience doesn't it. How exactly is a license for $749 USD expensive?

> Now let's move along to your acid trip...

The only acid I'm seeing here is nitric.

> Assuming you are 100% correct about the grid, commodity/utility computing,
> SETI, and all that, why on earth would Oracle be relevant in the equation?
> As if they are the only ones who figured it out? As if they are the right
> choice for that? As if the grid is even relevant...

Maybe not the only ones to figure it out. But I a lot closer to the mark than anyone else. Unless you are one of those that promotes UNION ALL as database partitioning.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)