Re: Fw: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

"rkusenet" <rkusenet@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<bks9qk$59tac$1@ID-75254.news.uni-berlin.de>... > 2. We asked for only DB price since that's what we need. So there > was no reason for IBM to quote Tivoli. > > 3. What is this C compiler? There is no necessity to have C compiler > on production box to support stored procedures. You can compile it > on your development box and just copy the object files to production. Oh Daniel's got this thing about DB2 needing a plethora of expensive C compilers and Tivoli to work properly. We know it's a "thing" of his because he keeps repeating it in various threads on and on and on ad nauseum, even though it's not actually true. In fact, although I've been working with DB2 UDB for many years at several sites, I have yet to work with Tivoli. Admittedly, at one site we did once have to purchase a '60 Microsoft C++ compiler, which completely blew the TCO estimates. Except that he's not got an axe to grind has he? So it must all be true after all. DG

Database Guy wrote: >"rkusenet" <rkusenet@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<bks9qk$59tac$1@ID-75254.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > >>2. We asked for only DB price since that's what we need. So there >>was no reason for IBM to quote Tivoli. >> >>3. What is this C compiler? There is no necessity to have C compiler >>on production box to support stored procedures. You can compile it >>on your development box and just copy the object files to production. >> >> > >Oh Daniel's got this thing about DB2 needing a plethora of expensive C >compilers and Tivoli to work properly. We know it's a "thing" of his >because he keeps repeating it in various threads on and on and on ad >nauseum, even though it's not actually true. > >In fact, although I've been working with DB2 UDB for many years at >several sites, I have yet to work with Tivoli. Admittedly, at one >site we did once have to purchase a '60 Microsoft C++ compiler, which >completely blew the TCO estimates. > >Except that he's not got an axe to grind has he? So it must all be >true after all. > > >DG > > 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. I grabbed two examples. I could have grabbed two different examples: Or ten. It isn't the examples themselves that have value. Rather the fact that one, in performing a price comparison, must be comparing two entities configured to have equal capabilities. 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. 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. -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)