Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1134096079.471233.306790_at_g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> David Cressey wrote:
> > "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1134055293.865826.300270_at_g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > If you were to look at the dollars spent on U2 and the dollars spent
on
> > > DB2, ... I'm certain there are many more features in DB2, and I
> > > respect the product (without having used it in any production
> > > environment) but it is SQL-based which might explain why I suspect
> > > suspect that if we could have a database-shootout for use in software
> > > development, U2 just might win.
> >
> > You're begging the question.
> > If there's something wrong with DB2, can you identify what's wrong?
>
> I have not spent enough time with DB2 to do anything more than lump it
> with other SQL DBMS tools. Sorry.

Neither have I. The closest contact I had with DB2 was when I taught an Rdb Design and Programming
course at a company somewhere in Ohio. This particular company was an IBM shop, all the way, with one little VAX, off in the corner of the computer room.

The people I taught were accustomed to DB2, and compared Rdb, feature for feature, with DB2. Fair enough. The students were knowledgeable and credible, and the impression I got from them is that DB2 was no paltry competitor to Rdb.
The course went well, by the way. I counted it as a success, because the cultural gap between IBM loyalists and DEC enthusiasts was enormous at the time.

The reason I brought DB2 into the discussion was so as to factor out, insofar as possible, factors that are due to the vendor, when comparing U2 to an SQL-relational product. Received on Fri Dec 09 2005 - 06:32:56 CST