Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

Daniel Morgan wrote:

> Comments interspersed.
>
> Larry Edelstein wrote:
>
> >Daniel,
> >
> >I don't have any problem with you expressing your opinion. But I do have to set
> >the record straight.
> >
> >What lack of security? DB2 uses the underlying OS for authentication security
> >and has the same internal object security that other rdbmses have. Can you
> >provide more specifics on what you mean by this and how it manifests itself in
> >the form of any issues?
> >
> My point was not that DB2 was unsecure on mainframes and UNIX ... but
> rather on Windows. Because, as demonstrated every week by a bunch of
> teenagers and 20 year olds ... the O/S itself is insecure.
>
> >Plenty of DB2 training classes. Take a look at the IBM Education schedules.
> >
> Exactly. Now try to find them from third-party training facilities here
> in Washington State, for example. Or from a community college or a
> university? And books? Try Amazon.com for example ... 245 DB2 books and
> how many relate to Windows? Then try Oracle ... 1128. Do you see the
> issue? And with Oracle there is a single code base an all operating
> systems so one book covers all platforms. Something not true with DB2.

I see DB2 classes on the education schedule in Seattle offered by IBM. Why the "requirement" for third-party training? When your execs make a database decision, what is the business driver/justification behind insisting on third-party training? Personally, if I were the exec, I'd rather have it from the company that makes the product.

As I said, why the requirement for a library-full of DB2 books, when you can get what you need with less? The books are available. Windows, Unix, Linux ... same code .... same book. Again you're misstating the facts: DB2 Windows, UNIX, Linux are all exactly the same code base.

I don't understand the class/book thing being a significant decision criteria. I don't see any issue here at all.

>
>
> >There are some very good DB2 books published on DB2. Do we need tons of them by
> >different authors each serving the same purpose?
> >
> The reference in my post was to DB2 on Windows. Don't try to make it
> into something it was not intended to be.

Again ... don't need special books for DB2 on Windows. Next case.

>
>
> >What makes you think that you need a compiler on a production box? I do not
> >think that is accurate.
> >
> From my experience it is. Or do you run your databases without procedures?

You don't need a compiler on a production box to run SPs.

>
>
> >And as far as the third-party tools and applications, I can't believe you took a
> >swat at that one. There were something like > 40000 last time I checked.
> >
> Third party means from companies other than IBM. And once again my
> reference was to the Windows platform only.

Same deal. > 40000 apps and increasing on Windows/UNIX/Linux.

>
>
> >Your points are sometimes well-taken. With all due respect, these had some
> >significant inaccuracies.
> >
> >Larry Edelstein
> >
> >
> >
> Please reconsider. I am a DB2 user so I'm not slamming the product. But
> it has its fair share of weaknesses just as all products do. And I just
> think it is unfair to slam those that disagree with you as greedy DBAs
> that only care about their jobs. Though, as I've also posted ... the
> mortgage and putting the kids through college comes light-years before
> product loyalty. Neither IBM, nor Oracle, nor Microsoft is writing
> checks to me so I'm still responsible for the balance in the checkbook.

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 Received on Sat Sep 13 2003 - 15:51:08 CEST