The end is near: Coca Cola switches to UDB
Mladen Gogala
artist formerly known as DB2. I've been an outspoken critic of Oracle's
way of doing business for a while now. I am also engaged on a project to
transition several databases from Oracle to PostgreSQL. Maybe that will
force their marketing to change tactics? At the very minimum, they should
give AWR report for free and make their databases cheaper. I'd hate to see
Oracle following in the footsteps of DEC. They were high and mighty, too.
Serge Rielau
> UDB, the artist formerly known as DB2.
It's like talking about "i" (as in 9i) as a placeholder for the Oracle 11g
The UDB addendum has been removed entirely with DB2 9.5 for LUW
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
SQL Architect DB2 for LUW
IBM Toronto Lab
joel garry
If Oracle follows in the footsteps of DEC, Larry Ellison would buy up
the remaining customers and all the intellectual property of the
flagship database product for pennies on the dollar. His net worth
would putatively drop from $25B to $2B, creating huge paper losses and
carryforward tax losses, so he could get back up to a substantial
percentage of $23B tax free. Numbers extracted from my butt, but
hopefully the concept is clear. It only wouldn't work if he did it on
purpose.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/oct/07/flo-tv-will-soon-have-little-helper/?uniontrib
Mladen Gogala
> If Oracle follows in the footsteps of DEC, Larry Ellison would buy up
> the remaining customers and all the intellectual property of the
> flagship database product for pennies on the dollar. His net worth
> would putatively drop from $25B to $2B, creating huge paper losses and
> carryforward tax losses, so he could get back up to a substantial
> percentage of $23B tax free. Numbers extracted from my butt, but
> hopefully the concept is clear. It only wouldn't work if he did it on
> purpose.
The problem is, that would signal the death of Oracle RDBMS. I wouldn't
like that to happen. VMS, my favorite OS of all times, has vanished
because of arrogant marketing policies. DEC was number 2 in the computing
world and it crumbled in a matter of months.
joel garry
Would Peoplesoft, SAP, or indeed, Oracle Fusion care?
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
"Well, I turned to my trusty web search, and located a PDF file at
http://www.sf-japan.or.jp/downroad/090514concalendar2010-2015.pdf.
(And yes, that's "downroad," not "download," in the URL, but since my
Japanese language skills are non-existent, I can't really throw stones
here.)" - Empoprise-BI
John Hurley
snip
If it makes you feel any better I know some local companies that are
buying some additional software.
I thought you were pretty much a critic of everything!
Bob Jones
"Mladen Gogala" <n...@email.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.10...@email.here.invalid...
So what. Plenty of companies moving the other direction. I have used DB2
before, it cost about the same, just licenced differently. If the mainframes
are also in the mix, it is even worse.
You were not serious about AWR having any significance in this right?
Bob Jones
"Serge Rielau" <sri...@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:7j3r9iF...@mid.individual.net...
Unlike 9i, UDB was part of the product name not a version number. Are you
sure you work for Big Blue?
Noons
> Mladen Gogala wrote:
> > UDB, the artist formerly known as DB2.
>
> There never was a product called UDB.
> It's like talking about "i" (as in 9i) as a placeholder for the Oracle 11g
> The UDB addendum has been removed entirely with DB2 9.5 for LUW
Have they re-coded it as well?
So that it is the same code base as DB2 in mainframes?
(not holding any hopes...)
Noons
> Coca Cola Bottling Company threw out Oracle and transitioned to UDB, the
> artist formerly known as DB2.
Not at all surprising.
IBM has been knocking at our door now for two years, offering UDB for
free if we move away from Oracle.
It's called dumping. Something multi-nationals like CC are well
known to like.
> I've been an outspoken critic of Oracle's
> way of doing business for a while now.
Join the club. Except I'm outspoken about their marketing. Not their
business.
> I am also engaged on a project to
> transition several databases from Oracle to PostgreSQL. Maybe that will
> force their marketing to change tactics?
I don't think so. Look at it this way: we have in excess of 200
databases here. 12 are Oracle including development instances, the
rest is MSSQL. Has it stopped this place from claiming to all four
winds we are an "Oracle shop"? Nope...
> At the very minimum, they should
> give AWR report for free and make their databases cheaper. I'd hate to see
> Oracle following in the footsteps of DEC. They were high and mighty, too.
I could say a few things here, but won't. (not related to VMS and
DEC!)
Serge Rielau
> sure you work for Big Blue?
g stands for grid
\UDB stands for Universal Database which in IBM lingo denotes a DB2
family member that has: user defined distinct types, user defined
functions and LOBs. Since all DB2 family members have those it became
pretty meaning less.
The "UDB" acronym to denote DB2 for LUW is as false as implying
Microsoft SQL Server when saying "I'm using SQL"
And yes, I'm sure I work to IBM and yes I am aware that IBMers are the
misconception as much if not more so than anyone else.
Call it a pet-peeve of mine....
joel garry
Ya win some, ya lose some: http://oracle.sys-con.com/node/1126431
So who in General Atomics likes Kurt Cobain?
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Howdy neighbor!
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/oct/08/bank-fraud-ring-busted/?uniontrib
Serge Rielau
Wow!
Bob Jones
>> Unlike 9i, UDB was part of the product name not a version number. Are you
>> sure you work for Big Blue?
> i stands for internet, last I checked i is not a number.
> g stands for grid
>
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.
> \UDB stands for Universal Database which in IBM lingo denotes a DB2 family
> member that has: user defined distinct types, user defined functions and
> LOBs. Since all DB2 family members have those it became pretty meaning
> less.
> The "UDB" acronym to denote DB2 for LUW is as false as implying Microsoft
> SQL Server when saying "I'm using SQL"
>
Who said anything about that? I was just saying UDB was at one point part
of the product name.
> And yes, I'm sure I work to IBM and yes I am aware that IBMers are the
> misconception as much if not more so than anyone else.
> Call it a pet-peeve of mine....
>
Indeed, IBMer are confusing even themselves.
Serge Rielau
> 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.
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
Try to tell anyone you're running "g" when asked for the version in this
group ;-)
Cheers
Serge
>
>> \UDB stands for Universal Database which in IBM lingo denotes a DB2 family
>> member that has: user defined distinct types, user defined functions and
>> LOBs. Since all DB2 family members have those it became pretty meaning
>> less.
>> The "UDB" acronym to denote DB2 for LUW is as false as implying Microsoft
>> SQL Server when saying "I'm using SQL"
>>
>
> Who said anything about that? I was just saying UDB was at one point part
> of the product name.
>
>> And yes, I'm sure I work to IBM and yes I am aware that IBMers are the
>> misconception as much if not more so than anyone else.
>> Call it a pet-peeve of mine....
>>
>
> Indeed, IBMer are confusing even themselves.
>
>
Mladen Gogala
> 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 have used DB2
> before, it cost about the same, just licenced differently. If the
> mainframes are also in the mix, it is even worse.
I have never used DB2. I did use Postgres and MySQL and am involved in a
project of transitioning one Oracle db to Postgres.
>
> You were not serious about AWR having any significance in this right?
Well, that's my pet peeve with Oracle.
John Hurley
snip
> 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
My guess was that you chug Red Bull before you post here ... my
mistake!
When you are on top of the heap you have more ability to make the
customer pay the price that the seller wants. I don't see that
changing away from Oracle any time soon.
Mladen Gogala
> When you are on top of the heap you have more ability to make the
> customer pay the price that the seller wants. I don't see that changing
> away from Oracle any time soon.
Have you heard of a guy named Ken Olsen?
Serge Rielau
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.
Cheers
Serge
joel garry
> > Ya win some, ya lose some: http://oracle.sys-con.com/node/1126431
>
> "Oracle-based Metadata catalogs"
> Wow!
>
Yah, gummint market news releases are often "entertaining." I guess
some new paradigm could make 29PB of metadata. I haven't seen
anything that beats Government Computer News talking about the new
PDP-11 VMS computer though (circa 1990). Talk about unclear on the
concept.
jg
--
@home.com
Make Room! Make Room! http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/oct/09/wireless-medical-industry-squeezed/?uniontrib
Mladen Gogala
> PDP-11 VMS computer
It was called VAX, actually. Virtual Address eXtension.
John Hurley
snip
> > When you are on top of the heap you have more ability to make the
> > customer pay the price that the seller wants. I don't see that changing
> > away from Oracle any time soon.
>
> Have you heard of a guy named Ken Olsen?
Not really.
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.
Mladen Gogala
> I don't think DEC was ever a major player in the computer field the way
> that you appear to think they were.
Oh boy, now you're pushing it. You talking to me (doing the best
impression of Robert De Niro in the "Taxi Driver" that I can)?
joel garry
You know that. I know that. You probably even know about Vaxen with
PDP consoles. The GCN reporter not only didn't know that, he munged
it up in a particularly stoopid way. I wish I had kept the article,
had it on my cube for a while. I should have been more precise, the
article specifically said pdp-11/70 VMS, and had several munges of the
two architectures, obviously from not comprehending disparate press
releases.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://gcn.com/articles/2002/05/31/unscramble-rip-computer-oldtimers.aspx?sc_lang=en
joel garry
Whaaaaaa? "At its peak in the late 1980s, Digital was the second-
largest computer company in the world, with over 100,000 employees." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation
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.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
There's some history I wouldn't mind repeating:
http://www.oracle.com/oramag/profit/07-may/p27anniv_timeline.pdf
Mladen Gogala
> 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.
Palooka
>
> 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.
>
application technology.
But I'll believe in transparent application migration when I see it.
Palooka
The Boss
> 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
Bob Jones
> 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.
> 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.
Bob Jones
"Mladen Gogala" <mla...@bogus.email.invalid> wrote in message
news:han7nd$nf$1...@solani.org...
> 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.
Shakespeare
I would believe in it after having seen it done more than once (a lot
more even...)
Shakespeare
Serge Rielau
Serge Rielau
transparent!) it is:
Detail presentation Session 2246:
http://tinyurl.com/EnableOracleApps2DB2-2246
Success stories Session 2248:
http://tinyurl.com/Enable2DB2Successes-2248
Hands on Lab 1010:
http://tinyurl.com/PL-SQL-HandsOnLab-1010
Noons
Don't worry, it's as real as the "single code base"...
Noons
> 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.
Shakespeare
> Fair enough, drop by in Vegas or drop me a note and I show how easy (not
> transparent!) it is:
>
> Detail presentation Session 2246:
> http://tinyurl.com/EnableOracleApps2DB2-2246
>
> Success stories Session 2248:
> http://tinyurl.com/Enable2DB2Successes-2248
>
> Hands on Lab 1010:
> http://tinyurl.com/PL-SQL-HandsOnLab-1010
>
> Cheers
> Serge
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
Serge Rielau
> 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)
It'll take a while to sink in.
Mladen Gogala
> 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.
Mladen Gogala
> 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.
MacRules
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.
ddf
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
Mladen Gogala
> 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.
>
> 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.
John Hurley
snip
> > I don't think DEC was ever a major player in the computer field the
> > way that you appear to think they were.
>
> Whaaaaaa? "At its peak in the late 1980s, Digital was the second-
> largest computer company in the world, with over 100,000 employees." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation
Then what happened to them? At all of the shops I was at thru mid
90's there was little if any DEC equipment and a whole bunch of IBM.
By the late 90's oracle workloads seemed to be running mostly on sun
and hp systems. If they were that big then they must have imploded
pretty quickly.
Matthias Hoys
"Mladen Gogala" <mla...@bogus.email.invalid> wrote in message
I agree. It sucks that you have to pay extra for "options" like Advanced
Compression and Partitioning for the Enterprise Edition, which is already
expensive enough. On the other hand, some of the free products like SQL
Developer and Application Express are becoming very good.
Matthias
joel garry
Mladen's point exactly. In 1989 it seemed pretty plain to me that
oracle/unix was a good bet. I wish I had bet more than my career on
it, it turned out to be more successful than I saw - having barely
broken even getting out of my DEC stock before it crashed and burned,
I was thinking the investment advice of "invest in what you know" was
pretty lame. At the time it wasn't at all clear that Oracle would do
better than Ingres or Sybase. MS betting on Sybase was perhaps the
only reason it survived at all. Of course, anyone who bought (or was
granted options on) Oracle or MS stock at that time and then held onto
it is now thought to be genius.
What happened to DEC? It's called "the bigger they are, the harder
they fall." Also, a big part of both Oracle and DEC's success was
military/gov contracts, so when the big lump of VAXen had gone through
the snake, it hit DEC hard, but Oracle not so much, since Oracle ran
on the hp/sun replacements, and there were still requirements for
things to run on Oracle. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Olsen
"Later Career History".
Oddly enough, by the mid-90's having expertise in both DEC tech and
Oracle/unix made me valuable as people dumped one for the other but
still needed their apps to work. Nowadays I look at the stuff that is
supposed to replace Oracle and just kinda feel like staying a dinosaur
until the asteroid comes. And still work on the descendants of the
system I worked on in 1980, having then found this amazing Relational
thingee, even if database-independence is like, so 90's.
Oracle won't fall like DEC because it explicitly recognizes greater
future value in apps than databases. Some publications seem to think
it might fall due to over-reliance on Larry, but such a statement is
certainly undervaluing Henley, Phillips and Catz. I mean, they can't
be too wimpy if they are keeping Larry happy, eh?
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/index.shtml
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22I+predict+that+the+last+mainframe+will+be+unplugged+on+March+15%2C+1996.%22
Noons
> only reason it survived at all. Of course, anyone who bought (or was
> granted options on) Oracle or MS stock at that time and then held onto
> it is now thought to be genius.
Errr.....
Thanks!
(and I should have done a LOT more!)
;)
> they fall." Also, a big part of both Oracle and DEC's success was
> military/gov contracts, so when the big lump of VAXen had gone through
> the snake, it hit DEC hard, but Oracle not so much, since Oracle ran
> on the hp/sun replacements, and there were still requirements for
> things to run on Oracle. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Olsen
This is IMHO the problem with Oracle now. Extreme portability was always its
saving grace when all else was buggy.
Portability is certainly not as important these days of one size fits all.
And when was the last time we saw Oracle push anything other than Linux?
> Nowadays I look at the stuff that is
> supposed to replace Oracle and just kinda feel like staying a dinosaur
> until the asteroid comes.
Amen!
> Oracle won't fall like DEC because it explicitly recognizes greater
> future value in apps than databases. Some publications seem to think
> it might fall due to over-reliance on Larry, but such a statement is
> certainly undervaluing Henley, Phillips and Catz. I mean, they can't
> be too wimpy if they are keeping Larry happy, eh?
Good point. M$ certainly hasn't fared better by replacing Gates with the
drug-addict.
But the question remains: who is going to replace Larry's ferocity? Because
that will still be needed with their business model and he is certainly not
eternal...