oracle has customers over a barrel

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_38/b4147052120632.htm

DBA wrote: > http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_38/b4147052120632.htm There are those who bicker and those who act. So many new friends these days. :-) http://www.channeldb2.com/video/enabling-applications-from -- Serge Rielau SQL Architect DB2 for LUW IBM Toronto Lab

"Serge Rielau" <srielau@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message news:7guq1bF2r6kklU1@mid.individual.net... > DBA wrote: >> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_38/b4147052120632.htm > There are those who bicker and those who act. > So many new friends these days. :-) > http://www.channeldb2.com/video/enabling-applications-from DB2 supports Oracle SQL PL/SQL out of the box? Really? DB2 the mainframe database ...?

Captain Pedantic wrote: > > "Serge Rielau" <srielau@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message > news:7guq1bF2r6kklU1@mid.individual.net... >> DBA wrote: >>> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_38/b4147052120632.htm >> There are those who bicker and those who act. >> So many new friends these days. :-) >> http://www.channeldb2.com/video/enabling-applications-from > > DB2 supports Oracle SQL PL/SQL out of the box? > Really? > DB2 the mainframe database ...? > > DB2 9.7 for LUW, yes, not all of it, but enough to do "exception based" tweaks rather than redesign. In the coming fixpack we'll even do BULK COLLECT and FORRALL. There is a developerworks article written by myself outlining what's supported: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/data/library/techarticle/dm-0907oracleappsondb2/ Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau SQL Architect DB2 for LUW IBM Toronto Lab

> From: srielau@ca.ibm.com > Subject: Re: oracle has customers over a barrel > Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:19:05 -0400 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > DBA wrote: > > http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_38/b4147052120632.htm > There are those who bicker and those who act. > So many new friends these days. :-) > http://www.channeldb2.com/video/enabling-applications-from > Those who act? Serge, I think you missed the bigger picture. (Which is no surprise.) Looking at Oracle, they've pretty much cornered the ERP market. Before you had the following: PeopleSoft Oracle Financials SAP Lawson JD Edwards Which represented what, 90% of the market? Today you have: Oracle SAP Lawson And really, how big is Lawson? Here's the problem... Its easier and cheaper to move a company off the underlying database than it is to switch ERP vendors. Looking at IBM, we saw a senior IBM executive gambling that if the ERP vendors stopped supporting IDS, the customers would move to DB2. (Oh what a brilliant decision that was.) Looking at SAP, only a handful of customers moved to DB2. The bulk moved to Oracle. So what you have is the following: Oracle ERP apps run on Oracle, while some of their acquisitions still support DB2, SQLServer. SAP runs on Oracle, SQLServer, DB2 . Lawson runs on Oracle, SQLServer, DB2. In both the vertical and the horizontal, Oracle has a majority of the market and mind share. IBM? Well IBM doesn't sell Applications so they're limited as to mind share in the ERP space. And now the kicker. Companies need ERP. They don't always need the underlying database. (Meaning they need SAP, but they don't really care if its on Oracle, DB2, SQLServer. You can replace SAP with Lawson or Oracle) However, if you consider the fact that some companies do their own in house development, those companies will need to look at the underlying database. If they already have DBAs that know Oracle and support their ERP servers, which database do you think that they'll choose? The database is a commodity, right? Its nothing more than just a way to persist your objects, right? JPA is the tool that levels the playing field, right? <DO I REALLY NEED TO TAG THE SARCASM?> That's Oracle's strategy. If its news to you, then you've probably been under a rock since they acquired PeopleSoft. Take this strategy out of the ERP field. Now look at CRM. (Can you say Siebel ?) Because they are the 800 lb Gorilla , they have a strong position. The article goes on to suggest that adding MySQL in to the mix would further strengthen Oracle's strategy. In a sense they are right. But at the same time, MySQL's popularity is that its 'free'. Because its open source, its easy to fork a distro and replace it with a new code stream. (But that takes money, effort and time.) Oracle will get Sun. The EU will delay the approval in an effort to gain concessions. However, it will not be able to stop the merger. Industry consolidation is a fact of life, however market forces will always allow a new player if their product is good and they have good marketing... (SalesForce.com as an example.) That's the big picture Serge. That's what you're missing. Oh I realize that you're just trying to put a positive spin on an article which paint's IBM in to a corner. The truth is that Oracle can create a two tier system on their software products. Or they can tailor their products to run better on Oracle. (Didn't SAP optimize their product to run better on DB2?) You get the point. The truth? IBM blew it because they are still gun shy regarding the monopoly charges from the70's. Say the word 'monopoly' and the execs and lawyers of IBM run the other way. Oracle? Microsoft? Not so much. But hey! What do I know? I'm just a guy who's been watching this unfold for the past 20+ years... -G _________________________________________________________________ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1

If the monopoly watchdogs believed that the app companies Oracle has purchased added up to such a big chunk of the market they wouldn't have allowed it to happen. The app market is highly fragmented. What you list might be the whales in this ocean, but they are a fraction of the total biomass. It always amuses me when you assert to know what I know (or rather what I do not know). Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau SQL Architect DB2 for LUW IBM Toronto Lab

On Sep 11, 7:52 am, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Captain Pedantic wrote: > > > "Serge Rielau" <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message > >news:7guq1bF2r6kklU1@mid.individual.net... > >> DBA wrote: > >>>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_38/b4147052120632.htm > >> There are those who bicker and those who act. > >> So many new friends these days. :-) > >>http://www.channeldb2.com/video/enabling-applications-from > > > DB2 supports Oracle SQL PL/SQL out of the box? > > Really? > > DB2 the mainframe database ...? > > DB2 9.7 for LUW, yes, not all of it, but enough to do "exception based" > tweaks rather than redesign. > In the coming fixpack we'll even do BULK COLLECT and FORRALL. > There is a developerworks article written by myself outlining what's > supported:http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/data/library/techarticle/dm-0907ora... > > Cheers > Serge > -- > Serge Rielau > SQL Architect DB2 for LUW > IBM Toronto Lab

On Sep 11, 9:37 am, Mark D Powell <Mark.Pow...@eds.com> wrote: > On Sep 11, 7:52 am, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Captain Pedantic wrote: > > > > "Serge Rielau" <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message > > >news:7guq1bF2r6kklU1@mid.individual.net... > > >> DBA wrote: > > >>>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_38/b4147052120632.htm > > >> There are those who bicker and those who act. > > >> So many new friends these days. :-) > > >>http://www.channeldb2.com/video/enabling-applications-from > > > > DB2 supports Oracle SQL PL/SQL out of the box? > > > Really? > > > DB2 the mainframe database ...? > > > DB2 9.7 for LUW, yes, not all of it, but enough to do "exception based" > > tweaks rather than redesign. > > In the coming fixpack we'll even do BULK COLLECT and FORRALL. > > There is a developerworks article written by myself outlining what's > > supported:http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/data/library/techarticle/dm-0907ora... > > > Cheers > > Serge > > -- > > Serge Rielau > > SQL Architect DB2 for LUW > > IBM Toronto Lab > > From past experience IBM has made changes where we had to pay license > charges to keep using features that were bundled in some of our > existing IBM products prior to upgrades on our mainframe so IBM is no > angel.  Nor is DB2 cheap.  DB2 is available to run on Linux and I > believe on some other platforms as well. > > As far as the claim in the article that mySQL is a competitor to > Oracle (or DB2 or SQL Server for that matter) it just really is not > true.  Mission Criticial systems do not run on mySQL.  If you need > ACID compliant systems you have to obtain a database engine to run > under mySQL.  There are several available.  Add an additional layer of > licensing and support.  Nor is mySQL free for commercial use. > > IMHO -- Mark D Powell --- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - PS - I agree with the complaint that Oracle is over-priced. It is definitely too expensive. -- Mark --

Mark D Powell wrote: >> From past experience IBM has made changes where we had to pay license >> charges to keep using features that were bundled in some of our >> existing IBM products prior to upgrades on our mainframe so IBM is no >> angel. Nor is DB2 cheap. DB2 is available to run on Linux and I >> believe on some other platforms as well. DB2 for Linux, Unix and Windows runs on HP, Sun, AIX, Linux on Intel/AMD, power and z. There are no angels in capitalism. The market does not encourage altruism. The only control is through competition. The pendulum must swing. >> As far as the claim in the article that mySQL is a competitor to >> Oracle (or DB2 or SQL Server for that matter) it just really is not >> true. Mission Criticial systems do not run on mySQL. If you need >> ACID compliant systems you have to obtain a database engine to run >> under mySQL. There are several available. Add an additional layer of >> licensing and support. Nor is mySQL free for commercial use. I disagree. The way I like to describe the phenomenon is that the "low end" is like the seam of your pants. That's where things start to unravel. You can take a look at the history of Windows and SQL Server. mySQL has an incredible pull if for nothing else than the broad skill set. We may not like that (in fact we may question whether mySQL teaches "good skills") but it is what it is. Also some of these small mySQL companies will become big (or already have) and they stay on mySQL for the same reason anyone else stays on their DBMS: Too much hassle to switch. The big three fight this with their "free" offerings which are embedded e.g. into point of sales. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau SQL Architect DB2 for LUW IBM Toronto Lab

On Sep 11, 6:37 am, Mark D Powell <Mark.Pow...@eds.com> wrote: > On Sep 11, 7:52 am, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > Captain Pedantic wrote: > > > > "Serge Rielau" <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message > > >news:7guq1bF2r6kklU1@mid.individual.net... > > >> DBA wrote: > > >>>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_38/b4147052120632.htm > > >> There are those who bicker and those who act. > > >> So many new friends these days. :-) > > >>http://www.channeldb2.com/video/enabling-applications-from > > > > DB2 supports Oracle SQL PL/SQL out of the box? > > > Really? > > > DB2 the mainframe database ...? > > > DB2 9.7 for LUW, yes, not all of it, but enough to do "exception based" > > tweaks rather than redesign. > > In the coming fixpack we'll even do BULK COLLECT and FORRALL. > > There is a developerworks article written by myself outlining what's > > supported:http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/data/library/techarticle/dm-0907ora... > > > Cheers > > Serge > > -- > > Serge Rielau > > SQL Architect DB2 for LUW > > IBM Toronto Lab > > From past experience IBM has made changes where we had to pay license > charges to keep using features that were bundled in some of our > existing IBM products prior to upgrades on our mainframe so IBM is no > angel.  Nor is DB2 cheap.  DB2 is available to run on Linux and I > believe on some other platforms as well. > > As far as the claim in the article that mySQL is a competitor to > Oracle (or DB2 or SQL Server for that matter) it just really is not > true.  Mission Criticial systems do not run on mySQL.  If you need > ACID compliant systems you have to obtain a database engine to run > under mySQL.  There are several available.  Add an additional layer of > licensing and support.  Nor is mySQL free for commercial use. > > IMHO -- Mark D Powell -- If you are a flickr or a google or a wannabe, your mission critical system may not require ACID. It's possible these kinds of companies don't always properly analyze when ACID _is_ required - mission critical (ie, serve users info) does not always mean run-the-business (get someones money). I know I've seen things go wrong where money transactions are involved. No excuse for that. Using a technology because you have the expertise in it is stupid if it is the wrong technology. mysql a competitor to Oracle? Technically, no, but business analysis doesn't put all that much, er, stock in the technical issues. jg -- @home.com is bogus. http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/10/bn10-911call-fatal-crash/?metro&zIndex=163775

>"Mark D Powell" <Mark.Powell@eds.com> wrote in message >news:bfb64fd9-a569-4e0c-9667-8bb2083e510a@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > DB2 is available to run on Linux and I believe on some other platforms as > well. DB2 runs on Linux and other platforms? Where did you hear that?

On Sep 11, 10:18 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote: > On Sep 11, 6:37 am, Mark D Powell <Mark.Pow...@eds.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 11, 7:52 am, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > Captain Pedantic wrote: > > > > > "Serge Rielau" <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message > > > >news:7guq1bF2r6kklU1@mid.individual.net... > > > >> DBA wrote: > > > >>>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_38/b4147052120632.htm > > > >> There are those who bicker and those who act. > > > >> So many new friends these days. :-) > > > >>http://www.channeldb2.com/video/enabling-applications-from > > > > > DB2 supports Oracle SQL PL/SQL out of the box? > > > > Really? > > > > DB2 the mainframe database ...? > > > > DB2 9.7 for LUW, yes, not all of it, but enough to do "exception based" > > > tweaks rather than redesign. > > > In the coming fixpack we'll even do BULK COLLECT and FORRALL. > > > There is a developerworks article written by myself outlining what's > > > supported:http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/data/library/techarticle/dm-0907ora... > > > > Cheers > > > Serge > > > -- > > > Serge Rielau > > > SQL Architect DB2 for LUW > > > IBM Toronto Lab > > > From past experience IBM has made changes where we had to pay license > > charges to keep using features that were bundled in some of our > > existing IBM products prior to upgrades on our mainframe so IBM is no > > angel.  Nor is DB2 cheap.  DB2 is available to run on Linux and I > > believe on some other platforms as well. > > > As far as the claim in the article that mySQL is a competitor to > > Oracle (or DB2 or SQL Server for that matter) it just really is not > > true.  Mission Criticial systems do not run on mySQL.  If you need > > ACID compliant systems you have to obtain a database engine to run > > under mySQL.  There are several available.  Add an additional layer of > > licensing and support.  Nor is mySQL free for commercial use. > > > IMHO -- Mark D Powell -- > > If you are a flickr or a google or a wannabe, your mission critical > system may not require ACID.  It's possible these kinds of companies > don't always properly analyze when ACID _is_ required - mission > critical (ie, serve users info) does not always mean run-the-business > (get someones money).  I know I've seen things go wrong where money > transactions are involved.  No excuse for that.  Using a technology > because you have the expertise in it is stupid if it is the wrong > technology. > > mysql a competitor to Oracle?  Technically, no, but business analysis > doesn't put all that much, er, stock in the technical issues. > > jg > -- > @home.com is bogus.http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/10/bn10-911call-fatal... A germane and provocative article in re: ACID transactions and other RDBMS "must haves." Note the employer of the lead author.... http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0903/p43.articles.florescu.pdf --Jeff

On 11/09/09 19:42, jefftyzzer wrote: > A germane and provocative article in re: ACID transactions and other > RDBMS "must haves." Note the employer of the lead author.... > > http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0903/p43.articles.florescu.pdf > It's somewhat disappointing that the article advertises 28msec so much, and that the author cannot spell forty. Nonetheless, food for thought. Palooka

On Sep 11, 11:42 am, jefftyzzer <jefftyz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Sep 11, 10:18 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 11, 6:37 am, Mark D Powell <Mark.Pow...@eds.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 11, 7:52 am, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > Captain Pedantic wrote: > > > > > > "Serge Rielau" <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:7guq1bF2r6kklU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > >> DBA wrote: > > > > >>>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_38/b4147052120632.htm > > > > >> There are those who bicker and those who act. > > > > >> So many new friends these days. :-) > > > > >>http://www.channeldb2.com/video/enabling-applications-from > > > > > > DB2 supports Oracle SQL PL/SQL out of the box? > > > > > Really? > > > > > DB2 the mainframe database ...? > > > > > DB2 9.7 for LUW, yes, not all of it, but enough to do "exception based" > > > > tweaks rather than redesign. > > > > In the coming fixpack we'll even do BULK COLLECT and FORRALL. > > > > There is a developerworks article written by myself outlining what's > > > > supported:http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/data/library/techarticle/dm-0907ora... > > > > > Cheers > > > > Serge > > > > -- > > > > Serge Rielau > > > > SQL Architect DB2 for LUW > > > > IBM Toronto Lab > > > > From past experience IBM has made changes where we had to pay license > > > charges to keep using features that were bundled in some of our > > > existing IBM products prior to upgrades on our mainframe so IBM is no > > > angel.  Nor is DB2 cheap.  DB2 is available to run on Linux and I > > > believe on some other platforms as well. > > > > As far as the claim in the article that mySQL is a competitor to > > > Oracle (or DB2 or SQL Server for that matter) it just really is not > > > true.  Mission Criticial systems do not run on mySQL.  If you need > > > ACID compliant systems you have to obtain a database engine to run > > > under mySQL.  There are several available.  Add an additional layer of > > > licensing and support.  Nor is mySQL free for commercial use. > > > > IMHO -- Mark D Powell -- > > > If you are a flickr or a google or a wannabe, your mission critical > > system may not require ACID.  It's possible these kinds of companies > > don't always properly analyze when ACID _is_ required - mission > > critical (ie, serve users info) does not always mean run-the-business > > (get someones money).  I know I've seen things go wrong where money > > transactions are involved.  No excuse for that.  Using a technology > > because you have the expertise in it is stupid if it is the wrong > > technology. > > > mysql a competitor to Oracle?  Technically, no, but business analysis > > doesn't put all that much, er, stock in the technical issues. > > > jg > > -- > > @home.com is bogus.http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/10/bn10-911call-fatal... > > A germane and provocative article in re: ACID transactions and other > RDBMS "must haves." Note the employer of the lead author.... > > http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0903/p43.articles.florescu... > > --Jeff Provocative, yes, germ-filled rather than germane. $ is simply a unit of exchange, putting it as an axis on a graphremoves too much dimensional information. For example, solving a complex requirement is going to have a number of possible solutions at different price points, which would need to be expressed on additional axes. It is also not discrete, as no one pays list price if they have any choice, which they would if it were a free market, but even though it isn't they still don't. It is well-established in many vertical markets that making choices based solely on price is a mistake - how large of a mistake is based on how difficult it is to quantify non-monetary value. Accountants have recognized this for years with the concept of goodwill, even though MBA's are usually the ones who make the mistake of underestimating it. For example, how much are the rights to Tron worth? A couple of years ago, near-0. Now? But good luck trying to get rights away from the mouse at any time. How much is mysql worth? How about Opel? I'd propose a more radical solution: all the new application paradigms are _not databases_. They need a different name. Heap has another meaning - how about piles? The reference to hemorrhoids is probably appropriate. jg -- @home.com is bogus. http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/11/1b11moto213216-motorola-hopes-cliq-can-boost-phone/?uniontrib

joel garry wrote: > The reference to hemorrhoids is > probably appropriate. I couldn't agree more! :o) -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:21:11 -0400, Mark A wrote: >>"Mark D Powell" <Mark.Powell@eds.com> wrote in message >>news:bfb64fd9- a569-4e0c-9667-8bb2083e510a@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> DB2 is available to run on Linux and I believe on some other platforms >> as well. > > DB2 runs on Linux and other platforms? Where did you hear that? Maybe here: http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/db2/9/ On the other hand, what do those people at IBM know? -- http://mgogala.freehostia.com

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:14:39 -0700, joel garry wrote: > I'd propose a more radical solution: all the new application paradigms > are _not databases_. They need a different name. Heap has another > meaning - how about piles? The reference to hemorrhoids is probably > appropriate. And none of the new application paradigms are as successful as is the database paradigm. To make things very simple: SQL is still very much in line with business needs. You can think about the records or you can think about subsets and relations. Set theory is, in my humble opinion, still the best fit for the general business needs. None of the know categories in mathematics is a better fit: vector spaces, differentiable manifolds, Abelian groups, Lie algebras or complete metric spaces are all very significant mathematical categories, in the sense of category theory, but none of them is even remotely as general as the "naive set theory" (official name for the set theory minus the axiom of choice, Zorn's lemma and the well-ordering theorem). The problem of programming paradigm is the problem of mapping the real world problems into theoretical model that is consistent and allows an easy manipulation. The naive set theory is still by far the best fit for the job. The whole controversy about the databases stems from the fact that they strive to solve a very general problem: how to quicky extract a subset of data from the possibly huge lot. The problem has 3 layers: 1) One has to be able to describe the desired subset in very precise terms. 2) One has to able to execute this extraction in a reasonable time. 3) The application must be able to deal with the entire subset and not just records. Unfortunately, all 3 layers require a considerable amount of knowledge and understanding and rather expensive software. There is an ongoing rethinking effort, throughout the industry and in my opinion, that effort was started by ever increasing prices of Oracle RDBMS. Essentially, all databases that do not have special uptime requirements are being moved off to other databases, of open source variety, if possible. In essence, there is no need to keep HR data, resumes, personal information and alike in an Oracle RDBMS. That info is used from Monday to Friday, from 9AM - 5PM, period. Data model is very simple and well known. Good enough application can be quickly manufactured by using Symfony, Zend Framework, Django, Ruby on Rails or something like that. Postgres or MySQL are good enough. The same thing applies to salaries, working hours and office supplies. Only the most critical, client-facing databases are important enough to warrant the purchase of expensive Oracle licenses. The whole thing doesn't just stop with the databases, it goes much deeper. Not only is Oracle RDBMS being replaced by PostgreSQL, WebLogic is being replaced by JBoss, Tomcat, Hibernate and Maven, there are pilot projects investigating Django, Ruby on Rails and Symfony all over the place. The company that I work for offers a choice of Ubuntu or Windows Vista on desktops, with the strong preference for Ubuntu inside the IT and the strong preference for Windows outside the IT. Some servers that do not need special handling, used to run the internal Apache servers, Samba and NFS servers are all moved from Red Hat to CentOS. In the long run, I believe that this movement toward cheaper open source software is positive and that employers are willing to invest more into the highly qualified individuals with strong expertize in databases, scritpting languages and OSS operating systems then into licensing proprietary software like Oracle. There is a strong feeling that companies are being extorted. That is why I made a significant effort to learn Perl and PHP and to manage performance on Linux variants. Needless to say, when presented with alternatives, I chose Ubuntu. As someone has said, the economic paradigm in a crisis is the paradigm of "good enough". The biggest problem for Oracle Corp. is the fact that the OSS databases like PostgreSQL are good enough and much cheaper than Oracle RDBMS. PostgreSQL can do everything that Oracle 8i was capable of, at the fraction of the cost. Oracle Corp. will have to adjust or suffer the consequences. If my memory serves me right, once upon a time there was a great computer company, 2nd only to the mighty IBM, with an excellent engineering, probably the best OS that the computing world has ever seen and very advanced hardware architectures. The company was based at the Mill, in Maynard, MA and it was called DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation). All of it was brouhgt down by the incompetent sales and marketing policies comparable to those of Al Capone. The very same things can be said about the Oracle Corp. Dinosaurs are big and powerful but notoriously hard to adjust to the changed circumstances. DEC was the dinosaur that went extinct during the savings and loan crisis in the early '90s. Unfortunately, every company strives to become a huge and powerful dinosaur. These days, a meteor has struck again. The fate of the Oracle Corp. is far from certain. The fate of the database paradigm as such is, in my opinion, not in danger. -- http://mgogala.freehostia.com

Mladen Gogala wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:21:11 -0400, Mark A wrote: > >>> "Mark D Powell" <Mark.Powell@eds.com> wrote in message >>> news:bfb64fd9- > a569-4e0c-9667-8bb2083e510a@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >>> DB2 is available to run on Linux and I believe on some other platforms >>> as well. >> DB2 runs on Linux and other platforms? Where did you hear that? > > Maybe here: http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/db2/9/ > > On the other hand, what do those people at IBM know? Mark, I think you need ";-)" when cross posting jokes to non DB2 groups.... ;-) -- Serge Rielau SQL Architect DB2 for LUW IBM Toronto Lab

On Sep 11, 2:21 pm, "Mark A" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >"Mark D Powell" <Mark.Pow...@eds.com> wrote in message > >news:bfb64fd9-a569-4e0c-9667-8bb2083e510a@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > DB2 is available to run on Linux and I believe on some other platforms as > > well. > > DB2 runs on Linux and other platforms? Where did you hear that?

On Sep 11, 5:14 pm, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote: > On Sep 11, 11:42 am, jefftyzzer <jefftyz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 10:18 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 11, 6:37 am, Mark D Powell <Mark.Pow...@eds.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 11, 7:52 am, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > Captain Pedantic wrote: > > > > > > > "Serge Rielau" <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:7guq1bF2r6kklU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > > >> DBA wrote: > > > > > >>>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_38/b4147052120632.htm > > > > > >> There are those who bicker and those who act. > > > > > >> So many new friends these days. :-) > > > > > >>http://www.channeldb2.com/video/enabling-applications-from > > > > > > > DB2 supports Oracle SQL PL/SQL out of the box? > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > DB2 the mainframe database ...? > > > > > > DB2 9.7 for LUW, yes, not all of it, but enough to do "exception based" > > > > > tweaks rather than redesign. > > > > > In the coming fixpack we'll even do BULK COLLECT and FORRALL. > > > > > There is a developerworks article written by myself outlining what's > > > > > supported:http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/data/library/techarticle/dm-0907ora... > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Serge > > > > > -- > > > > > Serge Rielau > > > > > SQL Architect DB2 for LUW > > > > > IBM Toronto Lab > > > > > From past experience IBM has made changes where we had to pay license > > > > charges to keep using features that were bundled in some of our > > > > existing IBM products prior to upgrades on our mainframe so IBM is no > > > > angel.  Nor is DB2 cheap.  DB2 is available to run on Linux and I > > > > believe on some other platforms as well. > > > > > As far as the claim in the article that mySQL is a competitor to > > > > Oracle (or DB2 or SQL Server for that matter) it just really is not > > > > true.  Mission Criticial systems do not run on mySQL.  If you need > > > > ACID compliant systems you have to obtain a database engine to run > > > > under mySQL.  There are several available.  Add an additional layer of > > > > licensing and support.  Nor is mySQL free for commercial use. > > > > > IMHO -- Mark D Powell -- > > > > If you are a flickr or a google or a wannabe, your mission critical > > > system may not require ACID.  It's possible these kinds of companies > > > don't always properly analyze when ACID _is_ required - mission > > > critical (ie, serve users info) does not always mean run-the-business > > > (get someones money).  I know I've seen things go wrong where money > > > transactions are involved.  No excuse for that.  Using a technology > > > because you have the expertise in it is stupid if it is the wrong > > > technology. > > > > mysql a competitor to Oracle?  Technically, no, but business analysis > > > doesn't put all that much, er, stock in the technical issues. > > > > jg > > > -- > > > @home.com is bogus.http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/10/bn10-911call-fatal... > > > A germane and provocative article in re: ACID transactions and other > > RDBMS "must haves." Note the employer of the lead author.... > > >http://www.sigmod.org/sigmod/record/issues/0903/p43.articles.florescu... > > > --Jeff > > Provocative, yes, germ-filled rather than germane. > > $ is simply a unit of exchange, putting it as an axis on a graph> removes too much dimensional information.  For example, solving a > complex requirement is going to have a number of possible solutions at > different price points, which would need to be expressed on additional > axes. > > It is also not discrete, as no one pays list price if they have any > choice, which they would if it were a free market, but even though it > isn't they still don't. > > It is well-established in many vertical markets that making choices > based solely on price is a mistake - how large of a mistake is based > on how difficult it is to quantify non-monetary value.  Accountants > have recognized this for years with the concept of goodwill, even > though MBA's are usually the ones who make the mistake of > underestimating it.  For example, how much are the rights to Tron > worth?  A couple of years ago, near-0.  Now?  But good luck trying to > get rights away from the mouse at any time.  How much is mysql worth? > How about Opel? > > I'd propose a more radical solution:  all the new application > paradigms are _not databases_.  They need a different name.  Heap has > another meaning - how about piles?  The reference to hemorrhoids is > probably appropriate. > > jg > -- > @home.com is bogus.http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/11/1b11moto213216-mot...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - "It is well-established in many vertical markets that making choices based solely on price is a mistake" Yes, it is, but unfortunately it is a mistake made repeatedly and often even repeated by the same people who made the mistake before. IMHO -- Mark D Powell --

On Sep 12, 9:30 am, Serge Rielau <srie...@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Mladen Gogala wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:21:11 -0400, Mark A wrote: > > >>> "Mark D Powell" <Mark.Pow...@eds.com> wrote in message > >>> news:bfb64fd9- > > a569-4e0c-9667-8bb2083e5...@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > >>> DB2 is available to run on Linux and I believe on some other platforms > >>> as well. > >> DB2 runs on Linux and other platforms? Where did you hear that? > > > Maybe here:http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/db2/9/ > > > On the other hand, what do those people at IBM know? > > Mark, > I think you need ";-)" when cross posting jokes to non DB2 groups.... ;-) > > -- > Serge Rielau > SQL Architect DB2 for LUW > IBM Toronto Lab Mark, did not post the joke, Mladgen did. Please give credit where credit is due. I laughed, but you are right in that sarcasm often does not translate well so a smiley would have been a good idea. Me, I love sarcasm along with nagging. That is why I am married 8-D. -- Mark --

On Sep 12, 9:01 am, Mark D Powell <Mark.Pow...@eds.com> wrote: > From IBM.  I installed DB2 on a Linux partition on a mainframe and I > am sure as Serge has confirmed that it was available on AIX and Sun > Solaris at the time (version 8 and/or 8.1).  IBM had/has ported the > product to non-IBM platforms.  They were in the process of making the > UDB versions and the traditional version more alike at the time.  That > is the first ports to other platforms and the mainframe version were > not based on the exact same code base but I do believe that version 8 > had greatly reduced the differences.  By now there should be few code > base differences except at the very lowest OS interface level. > > See Serge's reply. > -- Mark D Powell -- Admitting that you've installed DB2 is bad enough. Admitting to Linux on Z, well ... Since you're talking about DB2 v8, we can all look back at that fiasco of a launch. And if you talk to a couple of people in the field, they can tell you the customer horror stories. (Hmmm. I remember one where Janet convinced a customer to move off of XPS on to DB2 V8. ;-) But that was several years ago. IBM cut the Sun Ranger team. So what platforms does IBM really sell their DB2 on? We'll never know because IBM doesn't release the numbers. ;-) -G

On Sep 11, 4:14 pm, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote: > It is also not discrete, as no one pays list price if they have any > choice, which they would if it were a free market, but even though it > isn't they still don't. > No one pays list? Hmmm tell that to the SMB customers who don't purchase enough of IBM's product to warrant steep discounting. And yes, if you bargin right and you're big enough... you *can* get discounts off of J level pricing. ;-)