Re: Fw: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
Not a technical support thread at all: it's a vendor flame war spun off from a discussion of whether DB2 or Oracle is the better/cheaper choice. Participants argue about licensing costs and whether comparable configurations are being priced fairly; an Oracle advocate posts a long list of Oracle-only features (RAC, partitioning variants, standby/log shipping, flashback query, VPD, external tables, etc.) as proof of functional superiority, which others dismiss as buzzwords and proprietary extensions, with side jokes about Informix DataBlades. No question is answered and no resolution is reached.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Daniel Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1064444801.126413@yasure>... > Database Guy wrote: > I kept mentioning them only because no-one here has been willing to > acknowledge that some things included in one product may cost extra in another. They may, but nobody is seriously suggesting that Oracle has substantially greater functionality over DB2, or vice versa - surely? > I grabbed two examples. I could have grabbed two > different examples But equally spurious. > Or ten. Go on then. > It isn't the examples themselves that have value. Not when *you* make them up, that's for sure. > Rather the fact that one, in performing a price comparison, > must be comparing two entities configured > to have equal capabilities. Which we have here. Yet DB2 costs half. > I presume you'd think it smart to buy an 18 wheeler rather than a > Porsche for your car because the > 18 wheeler cost less. I don't buy cars. Ever heard of global warming? > This may come as a shock to you but at the > university we don't teach product > loyalty as part of our curriculum. That is one of the values of > something we treasure called academic freedom. ROFL - your web links point to your Oracle education offering (nothing else). Your only technical advice is posted to Oracle forums (not other DBMS's), even though of course you claim "experience" with other products. Half your posts repeat Oracle propaganda to belittle rival products. How is this independent? DG
> nobody is seriously suggesting that Oracle has > substantially greater functionality over DB2, or vice versa - surely? Can I play ? > Go on then. Thanks ... Real Application Clustering Multi Version Read Consistency Reverse-Key Indexes Index Organized Tables Stored, Compressed Bitmapped indexes Bitmapped Join Indexes Range Partitioning List Partitioning Range Hash Partitioning Range List Partitioning Bounded Recovery Time Multiple Standy Destinations Automated Log Shipping Zero Loss Log Shipping Standby Failover Standby Switchover Flashback Query SQL Log Mining Online Rename, Merge and Drop columns Online Re-org, Move or Defrag Strong Authentication Support (PKI) Secure Identity Proxying Virtual Private Database (Policy based security) Label Security (Label based security) Fine Grained Auditing (Policy based) Any level of Security Certification External Tables Multi Table Insert Transportable Tablespaces Resource Management Automated Memory Management XML Schema Support Workspace Management Your turn now. Let the fun (re) begin Yours, Nobody Still Comfortably Numb.
> nobody is seriously suggesting that Oracle has > substantially greater functionality over DB2, or vice versa - surely? Can I play ? > Go on then. Thanks ... Real Application Clustering Multi Version Read Consistency Reverse-Key Indexes Index Organized Tables Stored, Compressed Bitmapped indexes Bitmapped Join Indexes Range Partitioning List Partitioning Range Hash Partitioning Range List Partitioning Bounded Recovery Time Multiple Standy Destinations Automated Log Shipping Zero Loss Log Shipping Standby Failover Standby Switchover Flashback Query SQL Log Mining Online Rename, Merge and Drop columns Online Re-org, Move or Defrag Strong Authentication Support (PKI) Secure Identity Proxying Virtual Private Database (Policy based security) Label Security (Label based security) Fine Grained Auditing (Policy based) Any level of Security Certification External Tables Multi Table Insert Transportable Tablespaces Resource Management Automated Memory Management XML Schema Support Workspace Management Your turn now. Let the fun (re) begin Yours, Nobody Still Comfortably Numb.
Obviously sent from a 2 node RAC cluster. The first post was simply gratuitous, the second mere stupidity.
Mark Townsend wrote: > Obviously sent from a 2 node RAC cluster. The first post was simply > gratuitous, the second mere stupidity. You might think I couldn't possibly comment. -- Ciao, The Obnoxious One "Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"
Mark Townsend wrote: > > nobody is seriously suggesting that Oracle has >> substantially greater functionality over DB2, or vice versa - surely? > > Can I play ? > >> Go on then. > > Thanks ... <Buzzword bingo snipped> > Your turn now. Let the fun (re) begin I'm sure every vendor can dress up a bunch of useless proprietary extensions and product design defects as features. :o) -- Ciao, The Obnoxious One "Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"
"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bl0lt0$6l3rb$2@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de... > Mark Townsend wrote: > > > > nobody is seriously suggesting that Oracle has > >> substantially greater functionality over DB2, or vice versa - surely? > > > > Can I play ? > > > >> Go on then. > > > > Thanks ... > > <Buzzword bingo snipped> > > > Your turn now. Let the fun (re) begin > > I'm sure every vendor can dress up a bunch of useless proprietary extensions > ... as features. :o) Could we call them "datablades"?
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > I'm sure every vendor can dress up a bunch of useless proprietary extensions > and product design defects as features. :o) > Informix never managed to.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:20:22 GMT, Mark Townsend <markbtownsend@attbi.com> wrote: >Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> >> I'm sure every vendor can dress up a bunch of useless proprietary extensions >> and product design defects as features. :o) >> >Informix never managed to. So you're saying that Informix did something right?
Captain Pedantic wrote: > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:bl0lt0$6l3rb$2@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de... >> Mark Townsend wrote: >> >> > > nobody is seriously suggesting that Oracle has >> >> substantially greater functionality over DB2, or vice versa - surely? >> > >> > Can I play ? >> > >> >> Go on then. >> > >> > Thanks ... >> >> <Buzzword bingo snipped> >> >> > Your turn now. Let the fun (re) begin >> >> I'm sure every vendor can dress up a bunch of useless proprietary > extensions >> ... as features. :o) > > Could we call them "datablades"? Having used a couple, I beg to differ. -- Ciao, The Obnoxious One "Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"
Mark Townsend wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> >> I'm sure every vendor can dress up a bunch of useless proprietary >> extensions and product design defects as features. :o) >> > Informix never managed to. I was going to say because they never had any, but I think you win this one. :o) -- Ciao, The Obnoxious One "Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"