| Computers Forum Index » Computer - Databases - Oracle (Server) » The end is near: Coca Cola switches to UDB... |
|
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| The Boss... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mladen Gogala wrote:
Quote: On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:47:24 -0700, joel garry wrote:
And you should thank your lucky stars a little company called RSI
decided these mini-computers were a good thing to put their product
on, for the CIA.
It has had only 3 employees at the time: Ed Oates, bob Miner and I
forgot the 3rd one.
Must have been either Umang Gupta, Bruce Scott or Tiger (Bruce Scott's cat).
--
Jeroen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mladen Gogala" <mladen at (no spam) bogus.email.invalid> wrote in message
news:han7nd$nf$1 at (no spam) solani.org...
Quote: On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:42:41 -0500, Bob Jones wrote:
So what. Plenty of companies moving the other direction.
Oracle is number one in the world of databases, for a very long time.
Their licensing policies are not making them more popular and all it takes
is a few big names, like CC, for the people to adopt new trend
I think it will take a lot more than that. Oracle has never been as strong
as now. Software industry will likely consolidate into 4 major companies:
Oracle, IBM, MS, and SAP. Small vendors will either be bought out or remian
in specialized markets. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Serge Rielau" <srielau at (no spam) ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:7j7pdjF3501ecU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net...
Quote: Bob Jones wrote:
9i is 9.x. It represents a range of verion numbers. "i" stands for
internet but no one thinks it is part of the product name. It's main
purpose is version distinction.
Pity Mark T isn't covering this group anymore. He could set this straight
Let me close with noting that the i covered two full versions and g so far
covers also 2 full versions with 4 deliveries.
UDB covered 4 versions with 7 deliveries in DB2 for LUW
When asked what version of Oracle, people say 9i or 10g. When asked what
version of DB2 back then, I never heard anyone say UDB. In fact most people
were so proud of the product name they simply called it UDB. Kind of like
shorten Oracle RAC to just RAC.
Quote: Try to tell anyone you're running "g" when asked for the version in this
group ;-)
Don't forget the number in front of it now. What version of UDB do you run?
UDB. Now that would be funny. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Shakespeare... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Palooka schreef:
Quote: On 09/10/09 17:54, Serge Rielau wrote:
SAP
+ Easly port Oracle apps to DB2 (PL/SQL, OCI, packages, ...)
+ More than match RAC with Sysplex for the masses via pureScale
http://db2news.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/db2-purescale-unlimited-capacity-transparent-to-applications/
=> A whole lot more interesting landscape emerges
The gloves are off I'd say.
I am no particular fan of any specifc RDBMS, nor of any particular
application technology.
But I'll believe in transparent application migration when I see it.
Palooka
I would believe in it after having seen it done more than once (a lot
more even...)
Shakespeare |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Serge Rielau... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Palooka wrote:
Quote: On 09/10/09 17:54, Serge Rielau wrote:
SAP
+ Easly port Oracle apps to DB2 (PL/SQL, OCI, packages, ...)
+ More than match RAC with Sysplex for the masses via pureScale
http://db2news.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/db2-purescale-unlimited-capacity-transparent-to-applications/
=> A whole lot more interesting landscape emerges
The gloves are off I'd say.
I am no particular fan of any specifc RDBMS, nor of any particular
application technology.
But I'll believe in transparent application migration when I see it.
Easy != Transparent.
--
Serge Rielau
SQL Architect DB2 for LUW
IBM Toronto Lab |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Serge Rielau... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mladen Gogala... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:44:11 +0200, Serge Rielau wrote:
Quote: Easy != Transparent.
Actually, in its original meaning, the word "transparent" denotes a
property of a material to allow light to pass trough it. Here is what the
dictionary has to say about it:
trans·par·ent (trans per′ənt, -par′-)
adjective
1. transmitting light rays so that objects on the other side may be
distinctly seen; capable of being seen through; neither opaque nor
translucent
2. so fine in texture or open in mesh that objects on the other side
may be seen relatively clearly; sheer; gauzy; diaphanous
3. easily understood; very clear
4. easily recognized or detected; obvious
5. without guile or concealment; open; frank; candid
So what is a "transparent migration"? A candid migration? I hate being
lied to by databases, during migrations. Easily understood migration?
What does it mean for a migration to be easily understood? Marketing
terminology has deformed English language beyond repair. Marketing types
are using completely unrelated words just because those words sound good.
Do you have a definition of a transparent migration? All I need from my
migration is to be cheap and easy, even if the phrase "cheap and easy"
can be interpreted in a different way.
--
http://mgogala.freehostia.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mladen Gogala... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:09:08 +0100, Palooka wrote:
Quote: I am no particular fan of any specifc RDBMS, nor of any particular
application technology.
I am. I prefer Oracle RDBMS above all other. What I dislike are Oracle's
prices and licensing policies. I welcome any competition to Oracle, in
order for them to stop behaving like a monopoly.
--
http://mgogala.freehostia.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ddf... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 11:10 am, MacRules <MacRu... at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
Quote: Mladen Gogala wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:09:08 +0100, Palooka wrote:
I am no particular fan of any specifc RDBMS, nor of any particular
application technology.
I am. I prefer Oracle RDBMS above all other. What I dislike are Oracle's
prices and licensing policies. I welcome any competition to Oracle, in
order for them to stop behaving like a monopoly.
Is it Oracle too buggy? How many patches to get it right ??
Is the RAC worth the price to pay for it? Cheaper replication solution
is the way to go.
RAC is not a replication technology, it's a high-availability option
as it's composed of ONE database accessed by 2 or more instances. Of
course you're welcome to explain how replication offers the same high-
availability options as RAC.
David Fitzjarrell |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Shakespeare... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Serge Rielau schreef:
I didn't mean I didn't believe you, but was merely pointing out the fact
that seeing something once is not a reason to believe it (for me, anyway)
Shakespeare |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Noons... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Palooka wrote,on my timestamp of 10/10/2009 9:09 AM:
Don't worry, it's as real as the "single code base"... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Noons... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Hurley wrote,on my timestamp of 10/10/2009 5:29 AM:
Quote: I was in the IBM mainframe world for a long time ... by the time I
transitioned over to Oracle Sun and HP were what everyone was pretty
much running oracle workloads on. Just a few people hanging in on DEC
systems in this area.
I don't think DEC was ever a major player in the computer field the
way that you appear to think they were.
Dude: you need to brush up on your computer history...
The IBM mainframe world was and is as removed from reality as can be and DEC was
*only* the second largest computer manufacturer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Serge Rielau... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Shakespeare wrote:
Quote: I didn't mean I didn't believe you, but was merely pointing out the fact
that seeing something once is not a reason to believe it (for me, anyway)
I wouldn't want it any other way.
It'll take a while to sink in.
--
Serge Rielau
SQL Architect DB2 for LUW
IBM Toronto Lab |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mladen Gogala... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:10:05 -0400, MacRules wrote:
Quote: Is it Oracle too buggy? How many patches to get it right ??
There are bugs in Oracle RDBMS, as in any decent database. Oracle support
usually does a decent job when working with them.
Quote:
Is the RAC worth the price to pay for it? Cheaper replication solution
is the way to go.
1) RAC is not a replication solution. RAC doesn't replicate anything.
Data Guard and STREAMS are replication solutions.
2) RAC is a high availability solution. It's worth it if you need such
high availability. Machines still do crash, for various reasons. If
you need your database to be immediately available, RAC is a great
thing. There are things that you have to know when managing RAC and
RAC does make things considerably more complex but it is a life
saver.
3) If you have to ask the question, you probably don't need RAC.
--
http://mgogala.freehostia.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MacRules... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mladen Gogala wrote:
Quote: On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:09:08 +0100, Palooka wrote:
I am no particular fan of any specifc RDBMS, nor of any particular
application technology.
I am. I prefer Oracle RDBMS above all other. What I dislike are Oracle's
prices and licensing policies. I welcome any competition to Oracle, in
order for them to stop behaving like a monopoly.
Is it Oracle too buggy? How many patches to get it right ??
Is the RAC worth the price to pay for it? Cheaper replication solution
is the way to go. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
