Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside
Date: 27 Jul 2006 12:57:39 -0700
Josip Almasi wrote:
> Ed Prochak wrote:
> >>Sure. But as I stated earlier, IMHO it's not up to model, it's due to
> >>vast resources that have been spent on RDBMS research and development.
> > This is the one point I cannot let pass unchallenged.
> > When the Relational model was first being implemented into a DBMS
> > product, the Network Model was king. There were not vast resources
> > forcing the Relational Model onto the programming field. It was
> > practical software engineers that saw the advantages. from that grew
> > the behemouth that is now ORACLE. (at least that is what I understand
> > as the main source of "vast resources" that you mention). You are not
> > fighting ORACLE marketting droids in this discussion.
> > But maybe I misread your comment. Further detail is welcome.
> OK, then let's finish, techie part is over, no reason to crosspost further.
> Vast resources from the above count in brain power rather than
> brainwashing power. Endless engineer-hours spent on r&d etc etc.
> Plus marketing of course.
> Back in the day it wasn't Oracle but IBM who pushed the tech... IIRC all
> these people (Codd, Boyce, Chamberlain... except Ellison;)) were with
> IBM. 
Hmm vast dollar$ spent in R&D to develop a new technology (at that time) that according to you and Dmitry is fundamentally less powerful. What's the motivation of IBM? They were outwitted by their glory crazed researchers. Good theory.
> BTW these days IBM had monopoly and had abused it, as was proven later.
> And I know of NDB oldtimers still bitching about that:) Even calling
> Codd idiot and everyone using RDBMS too:)))).
> (when both side fanatics call me idiot I know I'm right;))
> And IMHO Network model wasn't that much of a king as you seem to think.
> I.e. I had a chance to work on a PDP-11, it's RSX OS doesn't even have
> directory trees, it's a 2d matrix:) Like, you cd 0,0 instead of cd /:)
> I guess that designers thought of file system like file closet with
> 256x256 drawers for files:) Well it didn't have dir trees but it had
> versioning... and integrated DBMS:) A record manager AFAIK.
There were lots of files systems that were non-hirerarchical then. But
we were talking DBMS.
> But the bottom line is, it doesn't matter if Dmitry has better model,
> since IBM can invest 1000 times more engineers to work on their
> software. Even if Dmitry manages to make better product, IBM will simply
> buy him off. As happened with informix for their red brick .
> BTW these days I was in informix. Didn't work on dbms but with dbms,
> learned some about their inner workings anyway.
> And at the end, ibm or oracle, Dmitry or someone else, all the same.
> See, David doesn't beat Goliat, it's a fairy tale;)
Josip, you are such an optimist!!!
Received on Thu Jul 27 2006 - 21:57:39 CEST