Re: informix market share

RollForward Wizard wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: > >> RollForward Wizard wrote: >> >>> You should check out DB2 features first before going to Oracle, and >>> especially DB2 HADR, a chimpanzee can set it up it's so simple. >> >> >> And apparently some do. But given Oracle's can be set up with not much >> more than a few mouse clicks how much simpler is it? >> > It's not just a few mouse clicks it's also the licensing scheme(s) that > are drastically different Whoa ... slow down. You made a specific statement about Oracle and now you are trying to blur the subject by bringing in differences in licensing: Not acceptable. Yes it is just a couple of mouse clicks in Oracle if one uses the recommended tool, OEM, to configure RMAN. Has been for years. >> Or are you making a vague reference to a neolithic version of Oracle >> long out of support? > > I'm not making any reference to Oracle other than if someone so chooses > to use it, then so be it. But they really need to understand what they > are getting themselves into. And you don't think that your statement is equally true of any piece of software including their operating system? Would you recommend someone get into DB2 or Informix without really understanding it? Not even a newbie would say ... yeah go jump into an enterprise RDBMS without learning about it first. But if you find that person I've got some really great beach front property, in Louisiana, I'd like to sell them. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > RollForward Wizard wrote: >> DA Morgan wrote: >> >>> RollForward Wizard wrote: >>> >>>> You should check out DB2 features first before going to Oracle, and >>>> especially DB2 HADR, a chimpanzee can set it up it's so simple. >>> >>> >>> And apparently some do. But given Oracle's can be set up with not much >>> more than a few mouse clicks how much simpler is it? >>> >> It's not just a few mouse clicks it's also the licensing scheme(s) that >> are drastically different > > Whoa ... slow down. You made a specific statement about Oracle and now > you are trying to blur the subject by bringing in differences in > licensing: Not acceptable. > Daniel, I haven't used the latest version of Oracle ( any Oracle ) since 9i, and I __AM__ an Oracle customer, having actually purchased the software. I can't tell you DB2 is or is not easier to set up with HADR than Oracle HADR, or whatever it is called. I do speak from my own experience over the past 20 years using non-Oracle databases and also installing Oracle on a couple of occasions. I marveled at the installation of Oracle, which never seemed to end, and the footprint was way over 5 GB for 9i, and I can't even remember what all that shit was that was installed. So, yes, to scratch the surface, I'll take a really big gamble and say DB2 is easier to learn than Oracle. The total installed footprint of DB2 was just a little over 500MB, and I think that was with extra stuff thrown in that I didn't need to install. HADR __COMES_WITH__ DB2, so it is seamlessly integrated into the system. It probably comes with Informix but I don't know I haven't really paid attention to Informix. I have actually set up HADR on DB2, and I know that if an old geezer like me can do it anybody can do it. Oracle is more about corporate culture than anything really to do with technology, which is the point to my statements. Most of the purchase path has to be engineered at the very top of an organization simply because of the cost, and how Oracle is marketed, from the top down. It has worked well for Oracle, but that doesn't mean it's the right choice for every business, large or small. When people say they're dumping what they have and heading for Oracle, it's laughable because of the hidden costs associated with Oracle that will usually get people heading in the opposite direction once they actually connect with what Oracle is all about. It's not great software, it's not easy to learn, and it isn't a friendly company to do business with unless you're ready to really just piss your money away. God bless Larry Ellison, he plays ball with guys that love to spend money. If you're into his game God Bless You too. It just isn't for every business. > Yes it is just a couple of mouse clicks in Oracle if one uses the > recommended tool, OEM, to configure RMAN. Has been for years. > >>> Or are you making a vague reference to a neolithic version of Oracle >>> long out of support? >> >> I'm not making any reference to Oracle other than if someone so chooses >> to use it, then so be it. But they really need to understand what they >> are getting themselves into. > > And you don't think that your statement is equally true of any piece of > software including their operating system? Would you recommend someone > get into DB2 or Informix without really understanding it? Not even a > newbie would say ... yeah go jump into an enterprise RDBMS without > learning about it first. > I can tell you without any further discussion on this that Informix, DB2, Sybase, SQL-Server, MySQL, are ALL EASIER TO LEARN THAN ORACLE. There is no more to be said about it, you can crow till the fucking cows come home, Oracle is a beast compared to any other db out there, it is difficult to manage, has fewer options overall on how to use it, and it just sucks from an architectural standpoint. Now, believe what you want, you won't convince me otherwise. And I really don't care at this point whether or not you agree, there really is a lot of better choices than Oracle, period.

RollForward Wizard wrote: >> Whoa ... slow down. You made a specific statement about Oracle and now >> you are trying to blur the subject by bringing in differences in >> licensing: Not acceptable. >> > Daniel, > > I haven't used the latest version of Oracle ( any Oracle ) since 9i, and > I __AM__ an Oracle customer, having actually purchased the software. I > can't > tell you DB2 is or is not easier to set up with HADR than Oracle HADR, or > whatever it is called. You are an Oracle customer, as recently as 9i, and you ask: "Oracle HADR, or whatever it is called?" Apparently the word "Customer" means something different to you than it does to me. I can't think there are more than a handful of Oracle 9i customers that would ask the question you just asked. And not many more that wouldn't know about Real Application Clusters, DataGuard, RMAN, Grid Control, Advanced Replication, Streams, and the other available technologies for achieving 7x24x365 with both on-site and off-site transparent failover. I have to confess I did not read the balance of your post based upon the above. I can not reconcile the question you asked with having any actual experience with Oracle. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > > I'm not making any reference to Oracle other than if someone so chooses > > to use it, then so be it. But they really need to understand what they > > are getting themselves into. > > And you don't think that your statement is equally true of any piece of > software including their operating system? You see: for these folks if you are not buying IBM, you simply do NOT "understand it".

RollForward Wizard wrote: > > I can tell you without any further discussion on this that Informix, > DB2, Sybase, SQL-Server, MySQL, are ALL EASIER TO LEARN THAN ORACLE. > There is no more to be said about it, you can crow till the fucking > cows come home, Oracle is a beast compared to any other db out there, > it is difficult to manage, has fewer options overall on how to use it, > and it just sucks from an architectural standpoint. Now, believe > what you want, you won't convince me otherwise. And I really don't > care at this point whether or not you agree, there really is a lot > of better choices than Oracle, period. > You probably don't want any further discussion because you have made a subjective opinion the cornerstone of a very stupid argument. Ask people from Wales, Iran, France, Germany and the US which is the easiest language to learn and guess how many answers you will get. So it does not matter how long you leave your caps lock key on for, you are just spouting wind. And if multi version read consistency is such an arhitectural howler, how come Microsoft who have the only real competitor aside from IBM out of the databases you mention are trying their hardest to implement it. It will leave IBM alone with MySQL and Sybase as the only supplier of a database where you have to code concurrency in your application. Which is about as attractive as it sounds. -- MJB

mjbox01@gmail.com wrote: > RollForward Wizard wrote: >> I can tell you without any further discussion on this that Informix, >> DB2, Sybase, SQL-Server, MySQL, are ALL EASIER TO LEARN THAN ORACLE. >> There is no more to be said about it, you can crow till the fucking >> cows come home, Oracle is a beast compared to any other db out there, >> it is difficult to manage, has fewer options overall on how to use it, >> and it just sucks from an architectural standpoint. Now, believe >> what you want, you won't convince me otherwise. And I really don't >> care at this point whether or not you agree, there really is a lot >> of better choices than Oracle, period. >> > > You probably don't want any further discussion because you have made a > subjective opinion the cornerstone of a very stupid argument. > Possible. I didn't start the argument. > Ask people from Wales, Iran, France, Germany and the US which is the > easiest language to learn and guess how many answers you will get. So > it does not matter how long you leave your caps lock key on for, you > are just spouting wind. > Actually, that defers to Daniel, he is the king of spout. > And if multi version read consistency is such an arhitectural howler, > how come Microsoft who have the only real competitor aside from IBM out > of the databases you mention are trying their hardest to implement it. Well, think about that for a moment. Once Microsoft has it I guess customers certainly won't want to spend their money with Oracle now will they? Ha! > It will leave IBM alone with MySQL and Sybase as the only supplier of a > database where you have to code concurrency in your application. Which > is about as attractive as it sounds. > Is that such a bad thing? Your statements appear to demean other engines as being inferior to Oracle without this "feature". But what are customers really buying when they buy an Oracle database engine? Old technology. The engine never seems to change, just the wrapping and marketing. For this one feature you claim to put Oracle on top, one has to consider all the other non-features the engine brings with it, especially when all you have to do is evaluate other products and see the comparisons. You begin to see the limitations, the restrictions, the narrow band of options that Oracle really has, meaning it really can only be set up with very few architectural options compared to other products out there. It's not that great. If YOU are the one actually putting the money on the table to spend it on Oracle or something else you would do the comparisons. But I know you haven't and probably won't. Ego works, and Larry knows it. But back to my original point, you won't convince me that "Oracle is as easy to use as DB2". I just won't believe it. People that think Oracle "technology" is great really haven't used other products or other architectures, just like Microsoft-only people, so they really don't know. Oracle people get sucked into Larry's megalomania, brashness, and bigger-is-better mentality. If that's for you, go for it. But it doesn't equate into better products, better customer service or a better way to do things. To non-Oracle people it just looks like what it is.

Better support? Hmmm not quite what we are seeing

hpuxrac wrote: > Better support? Hmmm not quite what we are seeing > You spent what, 2 seconds to spout that gibberish? wtf are you talking about. Go back and rewrite it.

RollForward Wizard wrote: > mjbox01@gmail.com wrote: > > RollForward Wizard wrote: > > But back to my original point, you won't convince me that "Oracle is > as easy to use as DB2". I just won't believe it. I was not trying to convince you, just pointing out that your view of ease of use is not universal and is therefore a meaningless point to raise. No matter how many times and ways you say it or the number of capital letters you use. The fact that you continue with it nevertheless says something. -- MJB

RollForward Wizard wrote: > But what are customers > really buying when they buy an Oracle database engine? Old technology. > The engine never seems to change, just the wrapping and marketing. Well.... The engine does change. Addition of new capabilities such as partitioning, objects, RAC, XML etc have all required deep surgery on a large code base. And on the other hand - the old Informix war cry about "we changed the engine, Oracle hasn't, therefore we are better" always seemed to me to speak more of a lack of foresight(*) by the original Informix developers than anything else. (*) Specifically the impact that read locking would have in large parallel environments. IDS managed to mitigate this somewhat with their redesign, but largely at the cost of horrendous checkpoint operations. I used to love to go head to head with the Informix 'superior' architecture conversation. At the time there was a single TPC-C result, with a single graph in it, that completely blew the whole argument out of the water. Used to take about 8 minutes to counter.

mjbox01@gmail.com wrote: > RollForward Wizard wrote: >> mjbox01@gmail.com wrote: >>> RollForward Wizard wrote: >> But back to my original point, you won't convince me that "Oracle is >> as easy to use as DB2". I just won't believe it. > > I was not trying to convince you, just pointing out that your view of > ease of use is not universal and is therefore a meaningless point to > raise. No matter how many times and ways you say it or the number of > capital letters you use. > It's not meaningless, obviously you found something about it that had meaning. Ease of use to me means that the software is written in such a way that it has either a high level of difficulty to use or it does not. If I have to wade through a lot of documentation to find what I need then the software as a collective work is not "easy" to use. This is not unique to Oracle, SQL-Server has a lot of problems too, with some very limited ways to do things. If it takes a longer time to be productive on oneproduct vs another, then you can say one is "easier" to use than the other. I have yet to have an easy-to-use experience with Oracle, compared with other products. As a business person I know what works in providing solutions, and Oracle is last on the list never first for a variety of reasons, and it will never get on my list for ease-of-use, whether for the front-end or the back-end. I just wouldn't want to work that hard, and pay for software that I know most people wouldn't use if they didn't have to. Oracle persists because of applications not because it's a great technology. Larry never sold technology, he sells dreams of great technology that people with more money than brains buy into, and then push it down on to people with brains and tell them to make it work. The Oracle engine has not improved a lot and remains the same as it was 10 years ago. Take away the big apps, and Oracle has no value. > The fact that you continue with it nevertheless says something. > The fact that you responded says something too. Have a nice day.

Noons wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: > > >>>I'm not making any reference to Oracle other than if someone so chooses >>>to use it, then so be it. But they really need to understand what they >>>are getting themselves into. >> >>And you don't think that your statement is equally true of any piece of >>software including their operating system? > > > You see: for these folks if you are not buying > IBM, you simply do NOT "understand it". Even if Oracle, the product, was not more than equal to the challenge. I'd work in Oracle just for the sense of humour and humanity of the people I'd be working with. I can not imagine, not even in my wildest dreams, going to a DB2 conference and hearing the likes of Mogens N'rgaard. Somewhere in the DB2 kernel there is an instruction something like: TRUNCATE PERSPECTIVE. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

"People that think Oracle "technology" is great really haven't used other products or other architectures" In the past 20 years I worked with DB2, Rdb, SQL Server and now Oracle. I can tell you that Oracle is the clear winner for many reasons, the main reasons in our case are: - Scalability. - Availability. - Multi-platform. - Read consistency. - Row level locking. - Built-in functionalities. - Transparent partition. - PL/SQL Rdb and DB2 were the closest to Oracle and SQL Server the worst by far. We have Oracle running on HP-UX, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX and Windows 2000 without any problem or incompatibility. We serve thousands of users around the World with many applications, tools, technologies, etc. I work with Oracle since 1994 and I never made any training, I learned all mainly from the Oracle manuals, Technet, forums like this, etc. Also, when you buy a database you need to take in consideration available documentation, skills, developers, knowledge, best practices, country, support, etc. Price is important of course but it must be weighted with all the above factors. We never bought Oracle because we "liked" it. The database is the most important component of any application, it is where the information is managed and stored. Remember, we are IT/IS professionals, (Information...).