Re: DB2 UDB or Oracle (who has better support)

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1109954308.266205_at_yasure...
> Daniel is not very upset though if he was it would hardly be something
> of which you would be aware. What Daniel doesn't like is the fact that
> those such as you who think DB2 is an object of religious faith try to
> minimize what is a major weakness in the product just as you try to
> pretend that shared-nothing (DB2 on Windows, *NIX) and shared-everything
> (DB2 on mainframes) are somehow the same product because the same name
> is printed on the CD. DB2 on the mainframe is an excellent product. DB2
> on Windows and *NIX is, at best, adequate.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan

I am not religious about anything having to do with IT. I made no claims about DB2 other than that "DB2 UDB for Linux, UNIX, and Windows" (that is the actual name of the product) uses the same code base and is virtually identical for all the platforms it runs on.

I was correcting your false statement you posted that moving from DB2 for UNIX, to DB2 for Windows, is like moving to Sybase because it is so different. Unfortunately, I suspect this is what you have been telling your clients also.

I don't know how you determined that DB2 for LUW (Linux, UNIX, Windows) is only adequate, since you seem to know so little about it.

In the context of this thread (SAP), any SAP supported database would be more than adequate from a functional point of view, since SAP tries to stay clear of proprietary database features. Most of my clients also try to avoid proprietary database features in their custom apps.

But I will say one thing, and that is DB2 for z/OS is much closer to DB2 for LUW than other databases I know of. IBM publishes a document with all the SQL inconsistencies in order to avoid incompatibility issues if a customer so desires to design both platforms. The operational differences between the 2 will always remain significant. Received on Fri Mar 04 2005 - 11:18:30 CST