Re: Oracle ?
Serge Rielau said: > Mark Townsend wrote: >> Serge Rielau wrote: >> >>> IBMs primary business is innovation, It is NOT fighting Oracle or >>> Microsoft. >> >> Tell me one innovative thing that IBM has done with DB2 in the last 5-10 >> years. Feel free to use this deinition of innovative - >> http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/innovative - or cite your own. > The whole effort around DB2 II if you look at big scale issues. > IBM has been pushing information integration for well over 10 yes now, > well ahead of its time. Yeah, good for IBM. Without IBM's vision, none of us pond scum round the edge of the tide would ever have thought of information integration, even 10 years ago. > On a much smaller scale (at the risk of sounding self promoting) within > the realm of SQL "SELECT FROM UPDATE" (see VLDB 2004 if you are > interested in research) is one of the most innovative pieces of SQL in > recent years. Yes, it's so frickin' innovative I still can't see what the point is. It might be really nice in a lab somewhere, but I really have never, in 20 years of doing this, thought, "wouldn't it be nice if..." > On a big scale IBM is setting the agenda with > eBusiness and onDemand computing. Sure. Accenture and HP might disagree, but hey, what do they know? IBM are the innovators, right? > IBM Hardware is sold running Oracle DBMS on it. Well, duh! > IBM Websphere is very popular with Oracle (how else could it beat BEA?) Well, duh! > IBM Rational tools are open. Bought in, doesn't count. Anyway, can you guys go have your pissing contest over in the cdo hierarchy or in cddb2? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche "I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't get my head up my ass" - JCH "Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo" - Marco I went to the airport to check in and they asked what I did because I looked like a terrorist. I said I was a comedian. They said, "Say something funny then." I told them I had just graduated from flying school. -- Ahmed Ahmed sending to informix-list
Obnoxio The Chav wrote: > Serge Rielau said: > >>Mark Townsend wrote: >> > Anyway, can you guys go have your pissing contest over in the cdo > hierarchy or in cddb2? Fair enough, it was a little bit of a troll which I apologise for.
Obnoxio The Chav wrote: > Serge Rielau said: > >>Mark Townsend wrote: >> >>>Serge Rielau wrote: >>> >>> >>>>IBMs primary business is innovation, It is NOT fighting Oracle or >>>>Microsoft. >>> >>>Tell me one innovative thing that IBM has done with DB2 in the last 5-10 >>>years. Feel free to use this deinition of innovative - >>>http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/innovative - or cite your own. >> >>The whole effort around DB2 II if you look at big scale issues. >>IBM has been pushing information integration for well over 10 yes now, >>well ahead of its time. > > > Yeah, good for IBM. Without IBM's vision, none of us pond scum round the > edge of the tide would ever have thought of information integration, even > 10 years ago. Wishful thinking is cheap OTC. You gotta throw some weight around to make it happen. >>On a much smaller scale (at the risk of sounding self promoting) within >>the realm of SQL "SELECT FROM UPDATE" (see VLDB 2004 if you are >>interested in research) is one of the most innovative pieces of SQL in >>recent years. > Yes, it's so frickin' innovative I still can't see what the point is. It > might be really nice in a lab somewhere, but I really have never, in 20 > years of doing this, thought, "wouldn't it be nice if..." .. you could insert _more_than_one_row_ into a table with SERIAL Primary key. and return the generated primary keys (e.g. reference #s of bill payments). .. you could give everyone in your company a 5% raise and compute the total cost of that action without wasting an expensive temp table, double scanning or serializing logic in cursor. .. you could move (not copy!) a set of rows from one table to another using SQL. >>On a big scale IBM is setting the agenda with >>eBusiness and onDemand computing. > Sure. Accenture and HP might disagree, but hey, what do they know? IBM are > the innovators, right? Watch the timeline, what came first: onDemand or utilityComputing (is that the HP word?)? >>IBM Hardware is sold running Oracle DBMS on it. > Well, duh! Also duh if IBM Hardware comes with Sybase or Oracle (so Larry wants in the future) preconfigured? Sign of closed or open? http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3441591 >>IBM Websphere is very popular with Oracle (how else could it beat BEA?) > Well, duh! You repeat yourself. Closed or Open? >>IBM Rational tools are open. > Bought in, doesn't count. Time will tell. > Anyway, can you guys go have your pissing contest over in the cdo > hierarchy or in cddb2? Why cddb2? This is a high level IBM debate. But granted I shall take it offline unless _native_ posters continue in which case I see no violation of netiquette. Feel free to answer by email to break this thread. Cheers Serge