Re: Oracle ?
Not a technical support thread but an opinion/marketing debate. It starts from a remark that Informix needs fewer DBAs than Oracle; Daniel Morgan counters that an Oracle DBA can handle 15-20 instances and that 10g's self-management reduces routine work, while agreeing Informix is a good, low-maintenance product. The discussion then drifts into IBM's billboard advertising near Oracle's campus and a DB2-vs-Oracle argument between Mark Townsend and Serge Rielau over innovation, openness, Linux and lock-in. No technical problem is posed and no resolution is reached.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Dirk Moolman wrote: > I have just completed the Oracle Fundamentals I course, and I was always > very curious why people said "for every Informix DBA you need 4 Oracle > DBA's". I'm not sure who the "you" is but I assume that a decent production DBA with Oracle can manage 15-20 databases (think instances in Informix). With 10g and the new self-management capabilities that number increases significantly to the point that I am not sure there will be any Oracle DBAs, in the classic definition of the position, in 10 years. RMAN has put backup and recovery well within the realm of the SysAdmin and most DBAs will be working with tuning, security, and application servers. > I now tend to agree with this statement. I have started making a list of > difference I find between Oracle and Informix, but one thing is sure, > Oracle has more tuning - which we can argue about - is it good, is it > bad ? Not with 10g. That was true in the past but no longer. > But yes, I think once you really start tuning Oracle, you create more > work and maintenance for yourself. Very interesting. Sorry, no insult intended, ... but not if you are competent. > I think Informix is an excellent DB for large companies - very powerful, > and easier to maintain. I agree. > Just my 2 cents worth (and I don't want to start a flame war - just > wanted to share my newly learnt knowledge / insight) :-) Neither do I. Both are excellent products. But be careful to make statements about a product based on earlier versions or based on lack of equal experience. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
"DA Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1103152256.610955@yasure... > Dirk Moolman wrote: > >> I have just completed the Oracle Fundamentals I course, and I was always >> very curious why people said "for every Informix DBA you need 4 Oracle >> DBA's". > > I'm not sure who the "you" is but I assume that a decent production DBA > with Oracle can manage 15-20 databases (think instances in Informix). > With 10g and the new self-management capabilities that number increases > significantly to the point that I am not sure there will be any Oracle > DBAs, in the classic definition of the position, in 10 years. Definitely true with DB2. It can heal itself you know. And it has a single code base.
Captain Pedantic wrote: > > > Definitely true with DB2. It can heal itself you know. > And it has a single code base. > > So I have to ask - does anybody actually grok IBM Marketing ? As some of you may know, IBM inherited the old Informix bill board on the 101 right outside the Oracle campus in Redwood Shores. When Informix had it we saw some really funny adverts during the Billboard wars - classics such as "Warning, Dinosaur Crossing" and "You have just passed Oracle (and so have we)" etc etc (Google for Informix and Billboard and Wars for some background) Then Informix hit us with the famous "Way to Web". We all yawned, but at least Informix has an excuse. Since the takeover, we have had IBM's Codernaughts, Middleware is Everywhere, and Linus as a Child. We all went WTF ? The latest has really go me perplexed. The bill board is divided into two halves. One half (left hand side) has a 'Closed' sign on it. The other half (right hand side) has a "Come in we are open" sign on it (like you see in the doors of shops, etc). In the middle it has the IBM logo, with 'Trapped' extending off to the left, and "Liberated" extending of to the right hand side. Trapped = Closed, Liberated = Open, etc etc. That's it. I don't get it - well, I get it, but it's incredibly facile, and I just don't think anybody driving down the 101 will believe it. Did we just discover were Informix marketeers went to die ?
Captain Pedantic wrote: > "DA Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message > news:1103152256.610955@yasure... > >>Dirk Moolman wrote: >> >> >>>I have just completed the Oracle Fundamentals I course, and I was always >>>very curious why people said "for every Informix DBA you need 4 Oracle >>>DBA's". >> >>I'm not sure who the "you" is but I assume that a decent production DBA >>with Oracle can manage 15-20 databases (think instances in Informix). >>With 10g and the new self-management capabilities that number increases >>significantly to the point that I am not sure there will be any Oracle >>DBAs, in the classic definition of the position, in 10 years. > > > Definitely true with DB2. It can heal itself you know. > And it has a single code base. Oh there will, of course, be DBAs. They just won't be doing the same job they do today. I expect the same will be true with DB2 as well. Lets hope Informix is still with us that far in the future. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
Mark Townsend wrote: > Did we just discover were Informix marketeers went to die ? > "where" not "were".
Mark Townsend wrote: > Captain Pedantic wrote: > >> >> >> Definitely true with DB2. It can heal itself you know. >> And it has a single code base. >> > So I have to ask - does anybody actually grok IBM Marketing ? > > As some of you may know, IBM inherited the old Informix bill board on > the 101 right outside the Oracle campus in Redwood Shores. > > When Informix had it we saw some really funny adverts during the > Billboard wars - classics such as "Warning, Dinosaur Crossing" and "You > have just passed Oracle (and so have we)" etc etc (Google for Informix > and Billboard and Wars for some background) > > Then Informix hit us with the famous "Way to Web". We all yawned, but at > least Informix has an excuse. > > Since the takeover, we have had IBM's Codernaughts, Middleware is > Everywhere, and Linus as a Child. We all went WTF ? > > The latest has really go me perplexed. The bill board is divided into > two halves. One half (left hand side) has a 'Closed' sign on it. The > other half (right hand side) has a "Come in we are open" sign on it > (like you see in the doors of shops, etc). > > In the middle it has the IBM logo, with 'Trapped' extending off to the > left, and "Liberated" extending of to the right hand side. Trapped = > Closed, Liberated = Open, etc etc. > > That's it. > > I don't get it - well, I get it, but it's incredibly facile, and I just > don't think anybody driving down the 101 will believe it. > > Did we just discover were Informix marketeers went to die ? > IBM has >300,000 employees vs. Oracle ~50,000 (?). IBMs primary business is innovation, It is NOT fighting Oracle or Microsoft. Innovation is like the tide. Making it rise raises the IBM ship and with it it raises Oracle, Microsoft etc, ... . IBM takes as little offense with this as a shark minds cleaner-fish picking its teeth. When Larry was proud of cashing in on IBM's "eBusiness" strategie IBM by no means lost. The same is true for the grid, onDemand, CM, II, pushing Linux. IBM approach to business is terra forming not subdivision development. As long as on the broad scale IBM captures enough of the latter they don't mind the spillage. The ads you see therefore are much more abstract and broad. I'm sure there are companies that like Oracle's approach to rip and replace (closed). But there are also ton's who firmly believe (or are condemned) in the heterogeneous world (open). FWIW I like that ad a lot. The attitudes refered to are well reflected in a number of posts in the Oracle newsgroups. There is little tolerance for anyone asking for portable solutions to a problem. Cheers Serge
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. I simply don't see IBM ever saying "Don't spend money on an OS. Don't spend money on high end SMP hardware. Don't spend money on high cost storage. Don't spend money on costly consulting". > I'm sure there are companies that like Oracle's approach to rip and > replace (closed). But there are also ton's who firmly believe (or are > condemned) in the heterogeneous world (open). > FWIW I like that ad a lot. The attitudes refered to are well reflected > in a number of posts in the Oracle newsgroups. There is little tolerance > for anyone asking for portable solutions to a problem. IBM has always been the i in proprietory. I didn't see IBM making Open Systems or portability work with any of their software until well after there was an established Open Systems market. You yourself have said that IBM was late to this market. And even then their record is and continues to be spotty. Specifically what are IBM doing to support portable solutions to a problem in DB2 ? > > Cheers > Serge
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. 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. I will not go into current research :-) On a big scale IBM is setting the agenda with eBusiness and onDemand computing. > I simply don't see IBM ever saying "Don't spend money on an OS. Don't > spend money on high end SMP hardware. Don't spend money on high cost > storage. Don't spend money on costly consulting". IBM supports and pushes Linux across all its platforms and across the software stack. Oracle is not even GA on Linux/pSeries last I checked. IBM just recently shipped virtualization software that allows customers to break out of vendor lock in on storage subsystems. And lock in is the #1 reason for sustaining high prices, ask any Oracle customer. Oracle is moving money from the hardware into Oracle RAC. A very dangerous argument to use, very opportunistic. >> I'm sure there are companies that like Oracle's approach to rip and >> replace (closed). But there are also ton's who firmly believe (or are >> condemned) in the heterogeneous world (open). >> FWIW I like that ad a lot. The attitudes refered to are well reflected >> in a number of posts in the Oracle newsgroups. There is little >> tolerance for anyone asking for portable solutions to a problem. > > IBM has always been the i in proprietory. I didn't see IBM making Open > Systems or portability work with any of their software until well after > there was an established Open Systems market. You yourself have said > that IBM was late to this market. And even then their record is and > continues to be spotty. Specifically what are IBM doing to support > portable solutions to a problem in DB2 ? I never claimed that IBM was always open. You are clinging to the IBM of 20 years ago. Senior IBMers like I were in grade 8 then. Oracle is the IBM of 20 years ago. IBM Hardware is sold running Oracle DBMS on it. IBM Websphere is very popular with Oracle (how else could it beat BEA?) IBM Rational tools are open. DB2 Content manager and DB2 Alphablox is sold on top of Oracle. DB2 even uses an standard protocol (DRDA) for client server communication. If Oracle wants they can develop and sell DB2 clients or have DB2 native(!) connectivity to Oracle Transparent gateway. DB2 seamlessly integrated into .NET including CLR (not expected in Oracle before O10gR2) despite IBM's commitment to Java. What is Oracle's reputation? Oracle Apps on DB2 or SQL Server? Oracle collaboration suite on DB2 or SQL Server? Let's wait and see what will happen with Peoplesoft and JDEdwards. Will I be able to send DB2 specs for Vnext to Oracle/App development, trusting that there is a) genuine interest and b) protection from the eyes of Oracle DBMS development? Here is an interesting article: http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=55800291 Cheers Serge