Re: No future for DB2

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:06:31 +1000, Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >John Carlson apparently said,on my timestamp of 3/08/2005 11:25 AM: > >> >> I use ER under 9.4; it works quite well. Relatively low overhead . . >> . . and I'm looking forward to 10.00. > >That's great. Someone please give the man the >blue plastic bucket. > And your point would be . . . . ? I'm saying, in my case with my systems, it works. Not as perfect as I'd like, but it works. Rows get updated / inserted on source; rows get replicated to reporting server. Nothing fancy . . . . No blue buckets needed . . . . I don't work for IBM. 8-) > >> If you don't want to keep Informix in the conversation, then please >> drop comp.databases.informix from your post list. Give a hoot, don't >> pollute. > >As soon as everyone else, including you, does the same >to all the other cross replies. Who the heck do you think >you are to tell me how and where to post? Get lost. Correct the error / comment in direct proportion to the broadcast. Your quote of . . . . >Madison: >I've long ago stopped believing in fairies, godmothers >and other garden variety gnomes. >Spare me the "mine is longer than yours", I don't give >a rat's arse what Informix does, under or not IBM. >Tah? . . . was cross-posted to all three, thus the reply / correction / comment gets cross-posted as well.. If you don't really wish to talk (intelligently or otherwise) about Informix, then why bother posting to c.d.i? You do have the right to post; other Oracle DBAs post here too. But when it gets ridiculous, we also have the right to either correct or ignore. 'Nuff said from here . . . back to the fireworks . . . 8-) JWC

John Carlson apparently said,on my timestamp of 4/08/2005 12:41 PM: >>>I use ER under 9.4; it works quite well. Relatively low overhead . . >>>. . and I'm looking forward to 10.00. >>That's great. Someone please give the man the >>blue plastic bucket. > And your point would be . . . . ? None. Just like yours. Except I enjoy the theatricals. A problem with that? > I'm saying, in my case with my > systems, it works. Not as perfect as I'd like, but it works. In my case, a Toyota works. Not as nice as a beemer, but it works. > Rows > get updated / inserted on source; rows get replicated to reporting > server. Nothing fancy . . . . Same here. Not a cent extra spent over standard edition Oracle. What can I say, I don't even run Informix... > No blue buckets needed . . . . I don't work for IBM. 8-) OK then: give the man a grey bucket. (that was the colour of the Informix PC SQL manuals, wasn't it?) > Correct the error / comment in direct proportion to the broadcast. > Your quote of . . . . In "proportion"? The darn thread has been x-posted everywhere since the FIRST post, NO ONE has BOTHERED trimming it and you butt-in NOW? Kinda "johny-come-late" don't you think? (no offence or reference to bedroom prowess meant) > comment gets cross-posted as well.. Really? I could NEVER have figured that out in a million years! Thanks for the clarification... > If you don't really wish to talk > (intelligently or otherwise) about Informix, then why bother posting > to c.d.i? Correction: I do not wish to talk in ANY fashion with cdi people about anything. Please remain out. > You do have the right to post; other Oracle DBAs post here > too. There is a masochist born every minute... > But when it gets ridiculous, we also have the right to either > correct or ignore. I suggest you pick the last one. Which is what just about everyone else has done. Because when you reply, you expose yourself to further replies. And I know it applies to me as well, no need to state the bleeding obvious. Nevertheless, it is MY choice. -- Nuno Souto in sunny Sydney, Australia wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam