Very Positive Comments from Oracle UK on Rdb
Roger Barnett
ho...@dbsuk1.enet.dec.com "Lilian Hobbs" writes:
>
> On the front page of Dec Computing 14th September here in the UK, the centre
> article is 'Sale of Rdb Finalised'
>
> Mike Harrison, Oracle's UK Managing Director is quoted as saying
> [snip]
>
> The final sentence reads 'While Oracle would devote effort to "making Rdb
> even more interoperable with the Oracle product set", it had no plans to
> migrate Rdb users to Oracle'.
Sorry to be picky, but actually the final sentence of this article reads:
An Oracle spokesman commented: "The long term future of Rdb depends on
users; if they show commitment, we'll keep it going; if not, we'll
have to consider some other strategy."
--
Roger Barnett
Erlend Dyrnes
I attended an ORACLE/Rdb Q&A at the DECUS Europe symposium last week, and
was very pleased. The "other strategy" which you are refering to was in fact
mentioned. If Oracle cannot continue to support Rdb as independant product,
we might see an end to both Rdb and ORACLE as we know them today, and the
birth of a combined ORACLE/Rdb containing the best from each platforms.
Anyway. Oracle stated a very strong commitment to Rdb and all its customers.
I do not, in any way, fear for my database installations.
erlend
--
Erlend Dyrnes, Senior Systemkonsulent, MBS Fjerndata AS
Prosjekt paa Statoil DATA: VMS
System manager, OpenVMS VAX. DBA, DEC Rdb
email: k38...@ddb.be.statoil.no, erlend...@mbs.no
Hans M. Aus
...
> An Oracle spokesman commented: "The long term future of Rdb depends on
> users; if they show commitment, we'll keep it going; if not, we'll
> have to consider some other strategy."
>
> --
> Roger Barnett
commitment == money ??
--
Cheers, Hans M. Aus, Wuerzburg,
e-mail: a...@vax.rz.uni-wuerzburg.d400.de
Inst. for Virology, Univ. of Wuerzburg
tel. office: --49 (0)931 201 3963; home: --49 (0)931 75271
fax.: --49 (0)931 201 3934
Tony Scandora 708-252-7541
>In article <35p926$k...@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>
> ho...@dbsuk1.enet.dec.com "Lilian Hobbs" writes:
>> The final sentence reads 'While Oracle would devote effort to "making Rdb
>> even more interoperable with the Oracle product set", it had no plans to
>> migrate Rdb users to Oracle'.
>
>Sorry to be picky, but actually the final sentence of this article reads:
> An Oracle spokesman commented: "The long term future of Rdb depends on
> users; if they show commitment, we'll keep it going; if not, we'll
> have to consider some other strategy."
So what's wrong with that? I have already posted why I think Digital and we
got the shaft in this deal, but I don't see how that particular statement is a
problem. Whether Digital or Oracle is the vendor, they sell Rdb to make a
buck. We buy it because it's good and helps us do our jobs. Oracle the
product may have serious shortcomings compared to Rdb, but Oracle the
corporation is not stupid. They bought Rdb because they thought they could
make money with it, and if we continue to buy it, they will continue to sell
it. If you bought what looked like a successful business, but after you got
it, you discovered it was a loser, how long would you continue to operate it?
By hiring most of the Rdb team and setting up whole new operations next door
to the current Digital operations, Oracle has shown some serious commitment to
Rdb technology. Can we do business with Oracle? Can we afford to? If the
answers turn up yes, we will continue to buy Rdb and Oracle will continue to
sell it. If not, it won't matter.
Tony Scandora, Argonne National Lab, 708-252-7541
scan...@cmt.anl.gov or scan...@anlcmt.bitnet
dmm...@nawlns.monsanto.com
>
> By hiring most of the Rdb team and setting up whole new operations next door
> to the current Digital operations, Oracle has shown some serious commitment to
> Rdb technology. Can we do business with Oracle? Can we afford to? If the
> answers turn up yes, we will continue to buy Rdb and Oracle will continue to
> sell it. If not, it won't matter.
>
I guess part of this is a statement and part a question. We have been extolling the
virtues of Rdb for handling VLDBs and for minimizing the DBA role with respect to its
competitors. If (When??) Oracle becomes a problem to work with, what are our alternatives?
What product gives us anywhere near the capability we are accustomed to having with Rdb??
Could it be that we will not be able to afford NOT to stay with Rdb?? I guess we all
have been crying and gnashing our teeth but what are our alternatives?? Sybase, Ingress,
DB2 ??
--
Mike Mattix
Agricultural Group of Monsanto
P.O. Box 174
Luling, LA 70070
INTERNET Address: dmm...@bigez.monsanto.com
Joel Garry
>buck. We buy it because it's good and helps us do our jobs. Oracle the
>product may have serious shortcomings compared to Rdb, but Oracle the
>corporation is not stupid. They bought Rdb because they thought they could
>make money with it, and if we continue to buy it, they will continue to sell
>it. If you bought what looked like a successful business, but after you got
>it, you discovered it was a loser, how long would you continue to operate it?
>
We really don't know that they bought Rdb because they thought they
could make money from it.
I think some possible reasons have been explicated before:
So competitors won't get it.
Sybase, obviously, possibly a bandwagon effect with CA/ingres.
Market share/Large Systems.
Corner the market, raise prices. Somewhere to sell ncubes.
Try to suck money out of educational market.
Want the technology.
Don't want the competition.
New toy for Larry.
Convince techies Oracle is forward looking.
Buying a product line as a marketing move? Why not?
Personnel raid.
Something CA missed with Ingres.
Perceived bargain.
"Forget this waiting for them to die stuff, let's go kill something!"
Potential tax advantages.
We don't know enough to evaluate this... perhaps this is the
software equivalent of prospecting for oil...
Non-cash value in a company is often overlooked, because there is no
standard way to account for it. With sufficient cash flow from other
operations, you can afford to have loss leaders or boutique businesses
- for a while.
>By hiring most of the Rdb team and setting up whole new operations next door
>to the current Digital operations, Oracle has shown some serious commitment to
>Rdb technology. Can we do business with Oracle? Can we afford to? If the
>answers turn up yes, we will continue to buy Rdb and Oracle will continue to
>sell it. If not, it won't matter.
>
Highly oversimplified. It may simply be smoke that will be written off
as a cost of doing business, covering the real intent. Sound paranoid?
From what Oracle has done in the past, probably not paranoid enough.
Besides, marketing is more important than anything else in Oracles
business. The commitment to Rdb is only a few percent of Oracles
resources - hardly serious.
See the issue of Forbes with Larry Ellison on the cover, giving excuses
as to why they didn't really commit fraud. Oracle as a corporation has
actually been very stupid at times. The stock market has an
exceedingly short memory.
--
Joel Garry joe...@amber.rossinc.com Compuserve 70661,1534
These are my opinions, not necessarily those of Ross Systems, Inc.
%DCL-W-SOFTONEDGEDONTPUSH, Software On Edge - Don't Push.
panic: ifree: freeing free inodes...
Mark H. Wood
scratch their *own* engine and reissue RDB 6.x, with their tools, as "Oracle 8".
Comments?
--
Mark H. Wood, Lead Systems Programmer +1 317 274 0749 [@disclaimer@]
Internet: MW...@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU BITNET: MWOOD@INDYVAX
"I live the greatest adventure one could ever wish." - a tosc
Erlend Dyrnes
Nope. I don't think so. According to Oracle Rdb will remain an "independant"
product for 3 years. However, I believe we will see a merged Rdb/Oracle some
time in the future (4-5 years from now). They *will* use some of the methods
in the Rdb engine, I'm sure. If not, why buy it ?
erlend
--
Erlend Dyrnes: Senior systems consultant, MBS Fjerndata AS, Bergen, Norway
System manager (OpenVMS) DBA (DEC Rdb)
email: Erlend...@mbs.no or k38...@ddb.be.statoil.no
- I do *not* know what it means to miss New Orleans
Joel Garry
"Not Developed There."