Re:RE: People what is Oracle Rdb ? NOT URGENT, ok !

Dick,

Thanks for the feedback, that is fascinating.

Note that I said it was "conventional wisdom", not that I was expressing a personal view based on actual industry experience! :)

If you have time, can you explain why your experience seems to be at variance with what I heard about Rdb, and Oracle's official statements (or, if you prefer, propaganda)?

hope all is weel with you & your projects, ep

On 19 Jul 2000, at 14:26, dgoulet_at_vicr.com scribbled with alacrity and cogency:

From:           	dgoulet_at_vicr.com
Date sent:      	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:26:09 -0400
Subject:        	Re:RE: People what is Oracle Rdb ? NOT URGENT, ok !
To:             	"Eric D. Pierce" <PierceED_at_csus.edu>,
       	Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>

> Humm, that's interesting Eric. Back when I had a finger or two in Rdb the
> Oracle (V4) database on the VAX cluster was much larger, faster & fault tolerant
> than the Rdb one. Although I will agree that upgrading Rdb was MUCH simpler
> than Oracle, but then maybe that was in part due to the legacy application that
> used Rdb.
>
> Dick Goulet
> ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> Subject: RE: People what is Oracle Rdb ? NOT URGENT, ok !
> Author: "Eric D. Pierce" <PierceED_at_csus.edu>
> Date: 7/18/00 2:30 PM
>
> Bon dia Sr. Luiz !
>
> This may surprise people that have come to Oracle in the last 5-8
> years or so, but a very long time ago (10+ years?) conventional
> wisdom held that that Oracle ***wasn't good enough*** for large
> databases. (Back in those days RDBMS was sort of a "toy", "Real
> programmers" used COBOL/VSAM!)
>
> But, Rdb *was* good enough (I guess because it was more platform
> specific, but also maybe the Rdb architects at DEC were better than
Received on Wed Jul 19 2000 - 14:53:03 CDT