Re: IBM Debunks Oracle's MultiVersion Read Consistency ?

From: Noons <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam>
Date: 08 May 2003 12:17:43 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns9375E27CD466ATokenthis@210.49.20.254>

Following up on Jeremy Rickard, 08 May 2003:

>
> As I said, the code base is shared on Windows, Linux and UNIX flavours

Proof? Or you implicitly believe anything IBM says?

> Gartner split out the figures to avoid that skew.

Oh no they damn well did NOT. IBM does NOT provide that information to ANYONE.

> IDC figures show Oracle with a higher share, but still show DB2
> and SQL Server rapidly gaining at its expense.
>

I hope it is at Oracle's expense! That means the normal market increase is all going to Oracle. At thet "rapid" gain of 1%/year, in another ten years they are going to be a real threat. That's gonna affect my retirement no end...

>> > Wall Street.  Better it seems to keep the high prices and attempt to
>> > slow loss of market share by smearing the opposition.
>> 
>> Oh, is that ANY different from what IBM does?

>
> Yes, undeniably cheaper licensing and IMO far less smearing.

Cheaper licensing for what? A product without security and which needs a bunch of other stuff in order for an online backup to happen? Ah, yes: an "average" user doesn't need all that "complexity". Yeah, right!

At least with Oracle you get a complete product. Not a eunuch designed to win price "comparisons". Done by morons who don't have the foggiest idea what is needed to run a database.

>> PS: don't bother commenting on my "future career", OK?

>
> Was anyone likely to?
>

Standard intimidation tactic from IBMers that float around this group from time to time. Check google.

Must be time for another release of UDB/DB2/whatever. The level of intervention here is increasing, with the usual "impending doom" of all of Oracle...

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam

Received on Thu May 08 2003 - 07:17:43 CDT