db2 vs oracle

[Jim Kennedy]

Re: db2 vs oracle

So I guess years of using and having experience with Oracle, DB2, Ingres,
Sybase, Sql Server, XDB, SQL Base (Centura), Btrive, dBase (padadox,
CLipper, Foxpro),my SQL, Isam and others is just too narrow an experience.
I as far as I remember Goob is a pile of mess of buggers. At least my kids
say so.
Jim


"Data Goob" <datagoob@hotma il.comwrote in message
news:Zs4Yc.1$QY 2.0@fe55.usenet server.com...

Jim,
>
Thanks for your comments. I disagree that I'm 'completely' wrong, but it
doesn't really matter, I'm not using Oracle. Oracle is a beast of a pig
all the way around, but you would only know that if you used something
besides Oracle. Oracle has excellent marketing, pay no attention to the
man behind the curtain.
>
Thanks!
>
Jim Kennedy wrote:

You know not what you write about. I worked for a company that included
Oracle as the database for an Electronic Medical Records company who's

main

customers were ambulatory care centers. (Your standard Dr.'s office)

The

customer did not need nor did they have a DBA or even an IS department

on

staff. Someone who was desktop savy could install the whole system from

the

excellent step by step documentation. (we started on Oracle 7.1 which

was

current at the time) People ran it for many years without a problem and

as

long as they followed the procedures in our manual (eg backup, hot or

cold)

then they didn't have any problems even if they had to restore. They
usually called us for restores. We were installed at several thousand

sites

all across the US. Dr. offices are very cheap and they did not

willingly

hire people just to administer the system. We supported Oracle running

on a

variety of platforms. (Netware, NT, HPUX, and if we had a larger QA
department could have easily supported Sun and AIX. QA, understandably,
wanted to run complete regression passes for every platform. With about

150

employees in the entire company at the time, there were just not enough
resources to reasonably do it.)

So one can set things up incorrectly and cause all sorts of headaches

and

make work, but if you take a little care and set it up right you don't

have

to spend time screwing around.

So you are completely wrong. Oracle has gotten easier to administer

since

7.1.
Jim

>
>

[Data Goob]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Jim Kennedy wrote:

So I guess years of using and having experience with Oracle, DB2, Ingres,
Sybase, Sql Server, XDB, SQL Base (Centura), Btrive, dBase (padadox,
CLipper, Foxpro),my SQL, Isam and others is just too narrow an experience.
I as far as I remember Goob is a pile of mess of buggers. At least my kids
say so.
Jim
>

boogers not buggers.

Goob would be goobers, etc.

Again, thanks for your comments. According to your list, most of the databases
you have had experience with are gone and practically forgotten. Most if not
all of them are very simple in comparison to Oracle, not even in the same category.
Paradox is gone. Foxpro lives on, and .dbf files live on in many phone dialers to this
day. Sybase is trying to make a comeback, SQL-Server is so not interesting because of
Sybase. The only one you mentioned with any glamour would be Ingres.

Interesting to have read a little of that book I mentioned, "SOFTWAR", about Ellison,
and what he thought of Ingres--he was very impressed according to the author, with
Dr. Stonebreaker and how good the engineering was in Ingres. It's enough of a
statement to get me interested in Ingres again--there may be something there to
use in a business context--and certainly for the person with the original post
to this thread.

Thanks Jim, I'll be waiting for your review of Empress, the only one you
seemed to have missed--er well their was Progress too.... so many players,
so little left to choose from.

>
"Data Goob" <datagoob@hotma il.comwrote in message
news:Zs4Yc.1$QY 2.0@fe55.usenet server.com...
>

>>Jim,
>>
>>Thanks for your comments. I disagree that I'm 'completely' wrong, but it
>>doesn't really matter, I'm not using Oracle. Oracle is a beast of a pig
>>all the way around, but you would only know that if you used something
>>besides Oracle. Oracle has excellent marketing, pay no attention to the
>>man behind the curtain.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Jim Kennedy wrote:
>>

[Data Goob]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Mark Townsend wrote:

Data Goob wrote:
In
>

>>>Larry's
>>>own words they indicate the direction of the company has less to do
>>>with
>>>being a database company and more to do with applications.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Complete and utter bullshit. You have absolutely NO basis for your
>>characterizat ion, yet you make it. Why ?
>>>

>>
>It was based on experience?

>
>
Who's ?
>

Actually to get you back on track, read through Larry's book, the words are
in the book, not quoting, but close enough, Oracle is more about applications
than databases. ( the book is "SOFTWAR" )

As far as my experiences with Oracle, it is the most expensive database
product on the market, not to mention one of the most complicated.

Now let's move along to your acid trip...

Assuming you are 100% correct about the grid, commodity/utility computing,
SETI, and all that, why on earth would Oracle be relevant in the equation?
As if they are the only ones who figured it out? As if they are the right
choice for that? As if the grid is even relevant...

Smoke some more Mark... break out the bong...

>

>>>
>>You obviously have no idea how the grid applies to business. Note
>>that one of the foremost proponents of the grid architecture is
>>indeed Ford.
>>>

>>
>Enlighten me on the grid. I'm getting my SETI screen-saver fired up, and
>turning on the Lava Lamp. LOL.
>>

Presuming that this was not a rhetorical question, the argument goes
something like this.
>
Silo's of computing are bad. Seperately configured systems for
individual workloads are bad - high cost, each over worked individually
but under utilized in terms of resources across the company. Labour
intensive. Difficult to integrate, make secure, make highly available.
>
So as an alternative, consider a grid. As follows
>
>

<snipped>

>

Later that same day...

The grid is a little more than lava lamps and SETI screen savers. SETI
was all about an organization without money finding ways to borrow
machine cycles from other people. Good for SETI, but not going to happen
for Ford, Boeing etc - Ford is not going to go to GM and say "run this
workload for me, I can't afford to". Instead, commercial grids are
built, not borrowed, and the future of the grid is all about the
practical application of well known consolidation, commodization,
standardization and automation techniques to the problem of deploying IT
solutions more efficiently. The Grid is to IT what the Ford Model T
assembly line was to Manufacturing. And most importantly, you can start
anywhere with this. Each of the advantages is achievable in it's own
right, with it's own individual value prop and ROI calculation. And as
you complete more and more of the jigsaw, over time, the ROI increases,
and increases, and increases.
>
It's going to be a fun few years.
>

With the drugs you're gettin? whooooo hoooooooo!

[Daniel Morgan]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Data Goob wrote:

I remain jealous of you Daniel for having access to really good weed!
It seems
to have the intended effect. Must be that stuff from Vancouver I heard
about.

I'm about 40 years too old to care what they smoke anywhere.

Anyway since you opened the door...
>
DB2 is far less difficult to understand and master than Oracle. More
specifically Oracle is the difficult database, whereas DB2 is a breeze to install and
use.

And you say that based on exactly what experience, how long ago, on what
versions based on what training? This sentence is meaningless and you
know it.

Oracle is a collection of disparate pieces of bolt-on software that
requires years
to "master" and lots of people to make it successful.

If you think others are smoking something surely you are injecting
something. What a load of pure rubbish.

This is why it is

happy
in larger organizations and completely inappropriate in smaller ones. DB2
has a clearly defined scalability that Oracle has yet to implement.

Which of course explains why it undersells Oracle on Windows and Linux.

Instead
Oracle continues to opt for smoke and mirrors.

Well that and sales.

10g has yet to be proven in

the business world as even relevant, much less RAC ( bwaahahaaaa! :-)

Laugh. Thelargest airplane manufacturing company in America is
implementing production systems with RAC for line-of-business apps.
DB2? I'm sure there a few legacy systems laying around. So what
exactly are you laughing about?

I

would
say DB2 and SQL-Server are more equivalent in ease of use, but the
differentiator
in DB2 is that it can scale way beyond what SQL-Server can, on low-cost
hardware,
and O/S.

I would say you haven't actually used Oracle in years and are expressing
not technical knowledge but personal ignorance.

Oracle requires a lot of money, time, and hardware, something

I would
be very concerned about as a business wanting to be competitive and keep
costs
down.

Oracle licensing starts at $749 (SE1 5 named user license). Take the
needle out of your arm and go to http://store.oracle.com where you can
confirm it if you wish.

--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

[Daniel Morgan]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Data Goob wrote:

Jim,
>
Thanks for your comments. I disagree that I'm 'completely' wrong, but it
doesn't really matter, I'm not using Oracle. Oracle is a beast of a pig
all the way around, but you would only know that if you used something
besides Oracle. Oracle has excellent marketing, pay no attention to the
man behind the curtain.
>
Thanks!

Anecdotal inflammatory nonsense lacking in substance. If you have any
actual experience from which to draw the conclusions you have state it!

--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

[Daniel Morgan]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Actually to get you back on track, read through Larry's book, the words are

in the book, not quoting, but close enough, Oracle is more about
applications than databases. ( the book is "SOFTWAR" )

And IBM is more about hardware than databases. Apparently you don't have
an actual point so you just made one up.

As far as my experiences with Oracle, it is the most expensive database
product on the market, not to mention one of the most complicated.

Which speaks volumes about your experience doesn't it. How exactly is a
license for $749 USD expensive?

Now let's move along to your acid trip...

The only acid I'm seeing here is nitric.

Assuming you are 100% correct about the grid, commodity/utility computing,
SETI, and all that, why on earth would Oracle be relevant in the equation?
As if they are the only ones who figured it out? As if they are the right
choice for that? As if the grid is even relevant...

Maybe not the only ones to figure it out. But I a lot closer to the mark
than anyone else. Unless you are one of those that promotes UNION ALL as
database partitioning.

--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

[Mark Townsend]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Data Goob wrote:

>
Actually to get you back on track, read through Larry's book, the words are
in the book, not quoting, but close enough, Oracle is more about
applications
than databases. ( the book is "SOFTWAR" )
>
>

I have the book. I have read the book. If you like to send me an address
offline, I'll send it to you. Then you can actually quote chapter and
verse to your heart's content.

[Data Goob]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Mark Townsend wrote:

Data Goob wrote:
>

>>
>Actually to get you back on track, read through Larry's book, the
>words are
>in the book, not quoting, but close enough, Oracle is more about
>applications
>than databases. ( the book is "SOFTWAR" )
>>
>>

>
I have the book. I have read the book. If you like to send me an address
offline, I'll send it to you. Then you can actually quote chapter and
verse to your heart's content.
>

Thanks but no thanks. I'll rely on my brief encounter with this tour
de force in errors and omissions as having been enough reading about
Larry and his obsessions for a while. It's a bit confusing to me
when it comes to Oracle people, but also Microsoft people as well,
are they passionate about the marketing or the technology? ( I think I
already know the answer, no need to reply. )

[Hans Forbrich]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Data Goob wrote:

Mark Townsend wrote:

>Data Goob wrote:
>>

>>>
>>Actually to get you back on track, read through Larry's book, the
>>words are
>>in the book, not quoting, but close enough, Oracle is more about
>>application s
>>than databases. ( the book is "SOFTWAR" )
>>>
>>>

>>
>I have the book. I have read the book. If you like to send me an address
>offline, I'll send it to you. Then you can actually quote chapter and
>verse to your heart's content.
>>

Thanks but no thanks. I'll rely on my brief encounter with this tour
de force in errors and omissions as having been enough reading about
Larry and his obsessions for a while. It's a bit confusing to me
when it comes to Oracle people, but also Microsoft people as well,
are they passionate about the marketing or the technology? ( I think I
already know the answer, no need to reply. )

Proof, once again - ignorance is bliss. After all, why use proof when
insinuation, innuendo and implication are so useful.

Thanks for the wonderfully amusing thread.
/Hans

[Daniel Morgan]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Data Goob wrote:

Mark Townsend wrote:
>

>Data Goob wrote:
>>

>>>
>>Actually to get you back on track, read through Larry's book, the
>>words are
>>in the book, not quoting, but close enough, Oracle is more about
>>application s
>>than databases. ( the book is "SOFTWAR" )
>>>
>>>

>>
>I have the book. I have read the book. If you like to send me an
>address offline, I'll send it to you. Then you can actually quote
>chapter and verse to your heart's content.
>>

Thanks but no thanks. I'll rely on my brief encounter with this tour
de force in errors and omissions as having been enough reading about
Larry and his obsessions for a while. It's a bit confusing to me
when it comes to Oracle people, but also Microsoft people as well,
are they passionate about the marketing or the technology? ( I think I
already know the answer, no need to reply. )

Away with the facade of caring about truth and accuracy? This is the new
century and if politicans and lawyers can ignore the facts why not you
too is what I take away from your comment.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

[Data Goob]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Daniel,

Did it ever occur to you that you butted into a conversation as an uninvited guest?
( on several different points I might add )

Wouldn't it be better to let Mark speak for himself? He was on a roll and I was
getting some good information into the mind of Oracle marketing.

If you must butt in, show some courtesy and at least have the decency to put your
drink down before ranting instead of spilling it all over people. Dear god man.

Anyway, I do appreciate your passion as well as Marks' but the devil is in the
details where I come from. Marketing is wonderful but eventually Oracle has to
pony up with reality. Sun is going through their reality check, along with SCO,
for Oracle it's just a matter of time. Larry doesn't have a vision for the
future because his vision has come and gone. Once he steps aside the company
can morph, but if he stays too long it'll be the end of it. Sun missed it, SCO
missed it, Unisys, DEC, the list gets longer every day. As Gordon Gecko said,
it's not the survival of the unfittest.

Daniel Morgan wrote:

Data Goob wrote:
>

>Mark Townsend wrote:
>>

>>Data Goob wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>Actually to get you back on track, read through Larry's book, the
>>>words are
>>>in the book, not quoting, but close enough, Oracle is more about
>>>applicatio ns
>>>than databases. ( the book is "SOFTWAR" )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>I have the book. I have read the book. If you like to send me an
>>address offline, I'll send it to you. Then you can actually quote
>>chapter and verse to your heart's content.
>>>

>Thanks but no thanks. I'll rely on my brief encounter with this tour
>de force in errors and omissions as having been enough reading about
>Larry and his obsessions for a while. It's a bit confusing to me
>when it comes to Oracle people, but also Microsoft people as well,
>are they passionate about the marketing or the technology? ( I think I
>already know the answer, no need to reply. )

>
>
Away with the facade of caring about truth and accuracy? This is the new
century and if politicans and lawyers can ignore the facts why not you
too is what I take away from your comment.

[Daniel Morgan]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Data Goob wrote:

Daniel,
>
Did it ever occur to you that you butted into a conversation as an
uninvited guest?
( on several different points I might add )

Which part of 'you posted to comp.databases. oracle.server' didn't you
understand? Did you think c.d.o.server was an IBM DB2 usenet group or
did you think it was an appropriate place for private conversations.

If you need help understanding the public nature of the internet I
would be happy to suggest some local community college classes for you.

--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

[Jean-David Beyer]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Daniel Morgan wrote:

Data Goob wrote:
>

>Daniel,
>>
>Did it ever occur to you that you butted into a conversation as an
>uninvited guest?
>( on several different points I might add )

>
>
Which part of 'you posted to comp.databases. oracle.server' didn't you
understand? Did you think c.d.o.server was an IBM DB2 usenet group or
did you think it was an appropriate place for private conversations.

The trouble is that most, if not all, of these posts are cross-posted to
comp.databases. ibm-db2 as well, so you will have to expect replies from
people on the ibm-db2 newsgroup as well.

>
If you need help understanding the public nature of the internet I
would be happy to suggest some local community college classes for you.
>

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 17:45:00 up 1 day, 2:59, 3 users, load average: 4.11, 4.11, 4.09

[Daniel A. Morgan]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Jean-David Beyer wrote:

Daniel Morgan wrote:
>

>Data Goob wrote:
>>

>>Daniel,
>>>
>>Did it ever occur to you that you butted into a conversation as an
>>uninvited guest?
>>( on several different points I might add )

>>
>>
>>
>Which part of 'you posted to comp.databases. oracle.server' didn't you
>understand? Did you think c.d.o.server was an IBM DB2 usenet group or
>did you think it was an appropriate place for private conversations.

>
>
The trouble is that most, if not all, of these posts are cross-posted to
comp.databases. ibm-db2 as well, so you will have to expect replies from
people on the ibm-db2 newsgroup as well.

Exactly. So if someone wishes to communicate in a single usenet group
it is incumbent upon that person to edit the group list. And if they
wish a private communication they should respond to the OP directly.

--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

[Serge Rielau]

Re: db2 vs oracle

Daniel A. Morgan wrote:

>>

>>Data Goob wrote:

Exactly. So if someone wishes to communicate in a single usenet group
it is incumbent upon that person to edit the group list. And if they
wish a private communication they should respond to the OP directly.

Sounds good to me. So could DataGoob and you please "take it outside".
This thread has 0 technical content (excluding Mark's strategy post).
I for one am really not interested in watching the two of you bashing
each others virtual heads in. If I want to see that I browse the
"omlet-thread" in c.d.o.s

Cheers
Serge