Post #88,428
3/14/03 7:06:41 PM
|
Read _The Innovator's Dilemma_, please
You are perfectly right that the low-end solutions don't meet your minimum needs right now or for some time to come. But in time they will. And when they do, Oracle's future will look as bleak as Sun's is looking now.
This is a very, very common dynamic. It plays out in technology a lot. And is still in an early stage on this episode.
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #88,431
3/14/03 7:19:55 PM
|
Don't agree
It won't be the cash cow forever,
but the dynamic is different than
Sun vs Linux.
See other post.
|
Post #88,466
3/14/03 10:34:39 PM
|
We will see
I agree that database conversions go slower. But lock-in is a short-term delay, but over the long-term (eg 10 years) it becomes a more permeable barrier. People do turnover, companies do experiment, the cost figure does attract attention. When the open source tools get to the right capability levels for actual user needs, the long-term trend will be towards them.
If you care to come up with a reasonable bet between us for 2010, I would be game for it...
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #88,474
3/14/03 11:13:20 PM
|
I agree with your time frame
Or close to it. I assume a "good enough" base
of open source databases avalailable then. It
will really be from a mix of hardware advances
and database code.
But the actual usage of those system and moving
from Oracle / DB2 will not really begin until
couple of years after that. Ya figure it will
be the next "bubble" that will cause the
feeding frenzy of optimistic expansion. At
that point people will be primed to make risky
decisions, and not really care if they burn
down the company on an expensive gamble.
Hmm. What would bet be on? Ratio of
proprietary vs open source installed? Gotta be
based on companys that can afford proprietary
now. How would you measure licenses? You don't
know was open source is installed.
|
Post #88,479
3/14/03 11:29:15 PM
|
by 2010 I expect the network to be the database
The OS's will be datacentric and a network will be joined nodes of tables across a flat reference.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]</br>
This nation . . . has no right to expect that it always will have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. . . . [If] the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. \ufffdUnited States Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan, 1866, declaring Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and other abuses of the Bill of Rights unconstitutional
|
Post #88,482
3/15/03 12:09:22 AM
|
Wow, I'm gone a few hours
And a fight breaks out on I We They!
Pricing for DB2?
Purchase price 2 CPU or less is $995 plus $158 per users. Using connection pools, most of our 2 processor e450 or e250 licenses run about $3850.
4 CPU license is $7500 per CPU, so that's about $30K.
Above 4 CPU license, it climbs to $15K per CPU until you get to "clustered" edition, which runs $20,000 per CPU.
Support costs are 20% to 25% of the original purchase price each year. So our 4 processor V880 was $30,000, and the support will be about $7500 per year.
We needed to start small, but still be able to scale to enterprise capabilities, and that was DB2 UDB.
And we haven't broken the bank.
|
Post #88,487
3/15/03 12:23:56 AM
|
Database Prognostication
I think Oracle is ahead of DB2 right now in database technology with RAS, even though DB2 claims the prize for the larger data warehouses (yes, even in Unix).
I was reading a report the other day about Experian having a DB2 Extended Enterprise Edition (clustered) with about a 14 Terabyte database in Allen, TX.
Not too shabby.
JCPenney just purchased a DB2 EEE solution to replace their NCR Teradata.
But, with blade computing and SANs becoming pervasive, I wonder if the database architecture will soon change?
With cache sizes in disk controllers in SANS rapidly growing into the size of server memory itself, why have shared memory in the server at all? The Hitachi 99xx ( 9960, 9970, 9980 ) can have 16 gig of cachre (or higher), it begs the question of why you couldn't have 100 (or 1000 for that matter) low end blade servers, all with just enough server memory to run a database server, but no "shared" memory. Also, with multiple high speed ( 2 GB per second ) fibre channel cables to interconnect the blade servers at new memory speeds, then why do we even need SMP systems? You can get a lot of V120's for the cost of a V1280 or a e10K.
I think software pricing for relational database will trend towards DB2 pricing, with a low entry point for 1-2 CPUS (be they blades or SMP), a jump at 4 CPUS, and then a big jump above 4.
One or two relational open source DBs like PostGreSQL or SAPDB will get some traction at the low end of the market (into 100-200 gigabytes), but I doubt you'll see someone running 14 Terabytes on PostGreSQL anytime soon.
|
Post #88,492
3/15/03 12:56:01 AM
|
In the year 2525....
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Is that all you guys ever think about? Do you see him hiding around every corner? Does he haunt your dreams? I dunno, if I was you I'd probably WANT to forget about the great William Jefferson Clinton. Unlike the current president, he managed peace, prosperity, balanced budgets, lower poverty and child poverty rates, 21 million new jobs, 50,000 new teachers, 100,000 new cops, the lowest crime rate in 25 years, greater worker protections, the highest home ownership rate in history, the protection of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security... Mind you, he did also have a penis, the evil bastard.
--[link|http://www.democraticunderground.com/|Democratic Underground]
|
Post #88,513
3/15/03 9:04:08 AM
|
One of my favorite songs that are never played anymore...
|
Post #89,586
3/19/03 8:53:58 PM
|
Beats me why it's not considered a "classic"
The world is only a simple place to the simple.
|
Post #89,592
3/19/03 8:59:48 PM
|
How sad
Now it's been 10,000 years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what he never knew
Now man's reign is through
But through the eternal night
The twinkling of starlight
So very far away
Maybe it's only yesterday...
Hmm appropriate now that the war has started...
-drl
|
Post #89,606
3/19/03 9:26:15 PM
|
It is.
But radio is dead. Not on Classic Rock stations...where it should be...but on "Oldies for adults"...another Clearchannel invention.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #89,537
3/19/03 6:15:38 PM
|
Re: by 2010 I expect the network to be the database
and we'll all be driving flying cars like the Jetsons!
Tech doesn't move that fast and its totally stagnant right now. Nothing new is happening.
At best people are just beginning to step back and look critically at the crap they've adopted.
Why, even [link|http://tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/03/16/XML-Prog|Tim Bray], known to the world as one of XML's greatest proponents, is beginning to get a clue.
The hangover is just beginning.
"I made up the term 'object-oriented', and I can tell you I didn't have C++ in mind"
- Alan Kay, OOPSLA '97
|
Post #89,557
3/19/03 7:03:59 PM
|
Bwahahahahahaha. "Jetsons". *snort* SO true, SO true.
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #89,579
3/19/03 8:41:49 PM
|
ya gotta think outside the box :-)
Day one computers shift data. Flat files VSAM Hashed tables. The OS and network is just an entry to the data. Relational came a long with the OS and network using client server to connect keyboard to database. I see in 7 years instead of relational/object databases, distributed databases. Imagine an LDAP like object that from login to logout is inside a table. Applications are subtables. Data resides wherever the resources are allocated and the master table tracks links. OS consists of a mini kernel that talks and listens ip and does IO.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]</br>
To a lot of people in California hunting anything but the wild tofualope was equivelent to sacarificing babies to satan. S.M. Stirling
|
Post #89,589
3/19/03 8:56:03 PM
|
So when this happens will OO be considered "legacy"?
The world is only a simple place to the simple.
|
Post #89,599
3/19/03 9:07:56 PM
|
what is an object? its a method of manipulating data
all binaries, compilers etc are data sets and as such can be loaded into a "cell" inside a table. If you think about it under unix everything is a file. Where it is, is contained under the Inode table. On Dos it is in the FAT(file allocation table) In win, its the registry. We are 1/2 way there.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]</br>
To a lot of people in California hunting anything but the wild tofualope was equivelent to sacarificing babies to satan. S.M. Stirling
|
Post #89,601
3/19/03 9:12:15 PM
|
It's something that can move around self-contained
-drl
|
Post #89,697
3/20/03 5:50:34 AM
|
It's a thingy..____you silly.
|
Post #89,710
3/20/03 7:39:19 AM
|
OK, Bryce: When did Bill give you his zIWT password to use?
|
Post #88,541
3/15/03 12:21:18 PM
|
I think that I have a reasonable bet...
First of all part of the problem is that you are viewing this entire conversion from the point of view of a company on the high end of the database range. What you view as the acceptable minimum is massively padded from the point of view of a lot of the actual database deployments out there.
This makes you one of the database vendors more juicy customers. It also will make you one of the last to switch.
But I think that I have a reasonable bet. It is very hard to verify the number of deployments out there. It is even harder to verify which would have been able to pay for it. However it is easy to look at the vendors SEC reports. And if lots of possible paying customers do switch but the vendors don't change strategies fast enough, then we will see that as losses for the vendors. Of the main vendors today, Oracle is the only pure database play. IBM and Microsoft have lots more irons in the fire. Therefore I am willing to bet that in 2010 Oracle's database business will be losing money. That should be a good measure for significant market erosion being in process.
What are we betting again?
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #88,546
3/15/03 1:13:20 PM
|
I don't trust "division" reports
Depending on the $$ flow, all the income shifts in the manner best to hide from taxes.
So even if Larry is raking in the bucks on DB, if he is losing money on apps, he'll shunt the income to apps up to the breaking even point. Still no taxes for apps, far less for db, but it looks like db tanked.
Same for the reverse if that is how it works out.
|
Post #88,548
3/15/03 1:31:10 PM
|
We have a problem then
I am not confident enough in my crystal ball to say whether Oracle as a whole will be losing money at that point, or whether their overall balance sheet will still be healthy. (An example of a company that cannot hide the pain is Sun with Linux.)
Perhaps someone who knows Oracle's business better than I do is willing to bet on that instead?
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #88,569
3/15/03 4:35:32 PM
|
Cadiallacs vs. Hondas
Oracle right now is a very powerful database with an expensive price tag.
In a loose ( mid-late 1990's ) economy, everyone seemed to have plenty of money, and everyone bought Oracle.
Today's another story. Most big companies have been brainwashed by the likes of IBM and Oracle to be convinced that they can't "bet their business" on anything less than DB2 or Oracle.
However, you get some consistent stories out there about MySQL, PostGreSQL, and SAPDB, and the thinking will start to change. It is already, as evidenced by the article at the top of this thread.
A few "thousand" pioneers will put Oracle and DB2 into trouble. I would venture guess that there simply aren't a lot of new Informix or Sybase customers right now. Oracle slowed down considerably, and sadly, DB2 for Unix and NT just started to become a story when the economy tanked. My guess is that the lion's share is going to SQL Server, which is tragic, considering how bad it really is.
However, just like the oil crisis in the 1970's, I think MySQL, SAPDB, and PostGreSQL can be the Honda and Datsun's of the new low-cost computing era.
Less features, a lot less cost, more miles to the gallon, so to speak.
But, some companies will keep spending on Oracle and DB2, it just remains to be seen how long those companies can stay in business if their competitors can put together functioning systems for 1/4 to 1/8 of the cost.
Glen Austin
|
Post #88,570
3/15/03 4:41:54 PM
|
BARRY... this is the BINGO.
Great post Glen.
b4k4^2
| [link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!] | | [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004] | Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at safety checkpoints. |
|
Post #88,573
3/15/03 5:16:24 PM
|
But it is not what you said
You said we can do SAP-DB now.
I agree with what Glen said. It is a matter of timing, of new installs, of isolated projects. It is years into the future. 5 - 10 years.
It is not now.
And it is not something you attempt to force into a situation that it is not RIPE for.
|
Post #88,581
3/15/03 6:37:47 PM
|
No *YOU* can't because you won;t risk that neck of yours...
...And in 5-10 years you won;t either... except when something comes along and WHOPS you across the side of the head...
AS I say, this can be done now with SAPDB... Maybe I was shy...on the COST... by a factor three... so I save 25% on the project... 1/4 saved of ANYTHING is EXTREMEMLY significant...
Get off your... "It's not well known, therefore shitty" routine... LINUX was that way and now it is everyones Twinkle of the eye...
Get over *HAVING* to prove this again and again... SAPDB *CAN* do as much as you need it to do... it is multi-threaded it has SUPPORT up the Wazoo... It has a significant support structure... argueably less than Oracle... but then again look at Oracle's Universal installer... it won't with out severe tweaking... Oracle fails to link or install properly on many(most) platforms out of the shrink wrap... Oracle has sooo many "Known Issues"
What would SAPDB be any different if it did the same things?
SAPDB, is supported by MAJOR ERP/CRM/HRMs... Issues you have aren't really the problem... they are YOUR problem... You can Management Speak... oh that is right... Barry doesn't do anything, unless it's done by "everyone"... Oh boy that bridge is getting closer and closer...
b4k4^2
| [link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!] | | [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004] | Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at safety checkpoints. |
|
Post #88,591
3/15/03 7:55:45 PM
|
Sigh
But I like my neck, thank you.
Your "my way or tough shit" attitude just doesn't cut it when dealing with multiple groups of people.
Oh my, it has multi-threading. yay!!!
So what? Technobabble for the people spending the $$.
So the "major" (according to you) apps support it?
So what. I'm not running them.
Most of the world run a huge variety of vertical apps.
Do THEY support it?
Does the vendor of MY critical app, the one I use work with it?
No.
Can I arm twist the vendor?
No.
Does this vendor of this particular app have reasonably priced competition?
No.
Does this app serve me (and my customers) very well?
Yes.
Do I want to rewrite it merely to use a different database?
Hell no.
Does it give me any choice of database?
Yup. It currently works with Oracle, DB2, and SQL Server
Can the vendor support it?
Only if I'm willing to pay at LEAST 25% more, and then unknown since it is a fork off their current tree.
Would I want them to increase their price by 25% to support another database?
No.
Have you given me anything other than insults that can help me move toward the alternative?
No.
Am I not manly enough? Not enough of a risk taker? I have not pushed forward the revolution fast enough for you?
I don't answer to you. I answer to my boss and my children.
Done.
Dead.
Thank you for playing.
|
Post #88,603
3/15/03 10:10:11 PM
|
Translation
Your toolset creates the dependency.
But if your tool vendor is convinced of the value of offering that port, then you would use it. In fact before you found out about that dependency you tried it.
Furthermore you have run pilot projects with both postgres and MySQL. And if your use of Linux is any sign, when the tool is ready for your needs (which I understand to be high-end) then you will have successful deployments.
But if your company is as you have described elsewhere, legacy projects will limp along for decades. Just like the mainframe folks have been doing...
Cheers,
Ben
PS Do you ever spare a moment of pity for people 20 years from now who will realize that the genius Barry Roomberg's untouchable code has a key routine with a mistake in it? And there are now unknown dependencies on this error in the maestro's code, so you can't fix it! :-)
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #88,620
3/15/03 10:52:12 PM
|
Huh?
PS Do you ever spare a moment of pity for people 20 years from now who will realize that the genius Barry Roomberg's untouchable code has a key routine with a mistake in it? And there are now unknown dependencies on this error in the maestro's code, so you can't fix it! :-)
Most of the time people use the term genius it is sarcastic. Should I be worried?
Anyway, if I have code that outlives me, doubt I'll care that people can't change it. It should be ripped out and rewritten every 3 years anyway.
|
Post #88,626
3/15/03 11:21:02 PM
|
Explanation...
It was a reference back to [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=81278|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=81278] - and while we are referring back to that thread there is a point that I had which I never stated back then due to being too busy to get involved at the moment.
My opinion is that you have mistaken the limitations of people who can survive the politics of your specific mainframe environment for the limitations of people who like to deal with mainframes. And if we can get her interested enough (and idle enough) to respond, my example of a mainframe person who demonstrates general competence by anyone's standards is Slugbug. That said, I suspect that there are many companies with established mainframe environments which resemble yours politically...
I also note that Ovid started on mainframes, but he is not evidence against your thesis since he left that environment quite cheerfully when given the chance.
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #88,647
3/16/03 12:10:37 AM
|
I started on mainframes, too...
I don't know if I'm up to the standard of SlugBug, but I did do 6 years of IBM 370 Assembler in a TPF and VM/CMS environment.
After 6 years, I had enough and was given a chance to work with C language on IBM PC's, so I did. In the 80286/80386 era. Two years after learning C, I started learning C++. I did that for about 5 years, then wanted to learn Unix and databases, but my employer was happy to make me into a permanent Windows NT networking person.
So I changed jobs, in about 3 months, I was proficient in Unix, and pretty decent in Sybase. Then I went to work for BEA, and realized that I knew nothing compared to the freakkin geniuses they had there.
I learned completely new coding techniques, to get portable code in C between AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, and even Windows NT. Something that still can't really be done in C++. But I did C++, too, and continued in the career.
Then I got a chance to do a big Unix/NT integration with C and Tuxedo and MQSeries, and mainframe interfaces in COBOL and XML. That was very cool, took a year.
Now, I've spent the last 1 1/2 years learning Java and DB2. I'm pretty decent at that, too.
But, for all that experience, I do think that fear stops most organizations from progressing and there are examples today of companies who won't be around in 5 years, because they cling to technology that time clearly has passed by. The airline/travel industry is particularly at risk, because they are still dependent on TPF (Transaction Processing Facility), when the last known updates for it from IBM were probably sometime in the early 1990's, and only after American, United, Delta, etc. BEGGED them to continue the O/S support.
Now, someone needs to rewrite the major travel reservations systems like Apollo, SABRE, and Worldspan into Unix technology, but now there's no money to support such an effort.
So, I fear the entire airline/travel technology industry will die off, until some brave soul enters the market with new technology. First small beans, then in about 5 years, they will dominate the marketplace.
The bottom line is that as long as the business model works, people will keep things the way they are. As soon as the model shifts fundamentally, then it's a WHOLE NEW BALL GAME.
Recessions are wonderful tools for creating a whole new ball game, because the economics make the old model flat out impossible.
|
Post #88,700
3/16/03 5:13:56 PM
|
Um....
....who ya' callin' a mainframe person? :-)
Sure, it's in my bag of tricks, but one has to grow and keep skill
levels consistent with what is in demand in the marketplace.
Not sure if I understand all of the parameters in Barry's shop, but
I'll venture a guess that there is a culture of fear element present
which likely permeates from above. In cases where fear is part of
the culture, it is often necessary to build and demonstrate a working
prototype that involves differing technologies so as to open eyes.
Has this been attempted?
Also, most mainframe shops that I'm aware of are adopting the plethora
of new technologies now available for big iron systems. Has this been
explored? Some examples:
[link|http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/os/linux/|http://www-1.ibm.com...zseries/os/linux/]
[link|http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/software/java/|http://www-1.ibm.com...es/software/java/]
My $.02
-Slugbug
If you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.
-Henry Ford
|
Post #88,704
3/16/03 5:42:07 PM
|
You know, use and like mainframes
That is what I meant by a mainframe person.
You also know, use, and like a ton of other technologies. :-)
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #88,709
3/16/03 6:00:14 PM
|
Categorization is a dangerous thing
IME, people who categorize themselves as mainframe people usually only have knowledge and skill in that area with little or no desire to learn other things. On the other hand, "technologists" can and often do have mainframe skill along with knowledge and experience in a variety of other areas.
-Slugbug
If you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.
-Henry Ford
|
Post #88,713
3/16/03 6:08:58 PM
|
*Exclusive* categorization is dangerous IMO
Since it is possible to know many different topics, it is possible for a person to be categorized as knowing multiple topics. ;-)
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #88,606
3/15/03 10:18:49 PM
|
Dont know your vendor but
When I was with Siemens and a GOOD customer asked CS if they could use X then Customer Service would start submarine support immediately on a test basis. Of course I dont know the vendor in question or their vision of what cust support is.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]</br>
To a lot of people in California hunting anything but the wild tofualope was equivelent to sacarificing babies to satan. S.M. Sterling
|
Post #88,614
3/15/03 10:40:12 PM
|
Small vendor
With a very limited support / development staff. They are far more interested in adding new features and fixing bugs than widening the number of databases they support.
When we started using them 6 years we were one of their 1st customers. They were a SQL Server ONLY shop. We practically forced them to move to support Oracle because SQL Server was too small / flaky to handle our requirements. So they already did this type of move, just for us. Since we resell their software into large companies, our argument was the large company already had Oracle and would not install / support SQL Server just to run their product.
It was incredibly painful dealing with this app. It generated SQL Server specific SQL. It used asyncronous ODBC connections, which never worked with the Oracle ODBC drivers, at least not for the 1st 2 years. I went though 6 seperate 3rd party ODBC driver test installs and QC. Sometime they would work for weeks until breaking in a strange way. The whole time the vendor said: Sure, send me everything you have and we will try to recreate. 2TB of data!!!! Of course we couldn't, so they would PCAnywhere into the PC running their software and try to fix it that way.
I'm speaking from EXPERIENCE here, not some BS "oh, it is well supported and has threads, ooooo". Try blowing MONTHS getting multiple systems playing nicely together.
We can't do the reverse, since we can't hold the carrot of SAB-DB already in the large corporations being used as a general database. Unless you want to point be to the companies using it already. Not vendors who support it, companies that use it.
|
Post #88,619
3/15/03 10:50:52 PM
|
understood and sympathise
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]</br>
To a lot of people in California hunting anything but the wild tofualope was equivelent to sacarificing babies to satan. S.M. Sterling
|
