×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
As if sweeping slanderous disparagements about the DB2 for i5/OS is
objective? PERHAPS *that* group needs to "spend some time outside their
world" of their /ivory tower/ view, with their claim on some definitive
*reality* of RDBMS, so that *they* would "be able to do an objective
comparison" against the DB2 for i5/OS; instead of snubbing other
databases without knowing or understanding anything about them.
That a particular community [of people] is unfamiliar with another
community, is often origin for formalized prejudice based on that lack
of familiarity and lack of understanding of background. Thus their
actions and words to disparage the DB2 for i5/OS, reflects nothing other
than bigotry. What benefit is there to this community to be continually
reminded that those other people hold an intolerant view? That is their
problem, in their refusal to move beyond their preconceptions. That
those thousands share the same view, does not make their view legitimate
nor justified, especially if that shared view is based on ignorance.
Given the niche nature of the i5/OS, I doubt more than one percent of
those sharing that opinion have even created an SQL application on the
i5/OS, to even have an inkling about its object based integrated nature.
That is, most likely they have just heard and adopted their negative
view from another person similarly lacking in any actual individual
experience. What legitimacy exists, in their judging something that
they have no experience in? Being happy with knowing only what is being
used and remaining ignorant of what else there is available, is
commendable behavior as compared to knowing only what is being used and
actively denigrating whatever else there is available.
I have personally heard over ten personal accounts of SQL people
[developers and DBAs] moving from other databases onto the i5/OS,
stating how wonderful it was to experience something so pleasant to work
on by comparison to what they had to deal with on [name your favorite
so-called /real/ RDBMS]. I also have personally heard from several
people that left the i5/OS [each experienced in SQL and SQL programming;
i.e. not DDS\ISAM people], and they _all_ bemoan the loss of the
integrated database, having instead to suffer the constant stream of
"please DBA could you do this", "please DBA do that", just to get and
keep their applications functional. Generally things that either never
had to be done nor to be concerned with using the DB2 for i5/OS, had
become constant nagging points in the database they moved to. Thus I
know of sufficient counter examples to the implied position that so many
claim "the DB2 for i5/OS is not a real database", from people
experiencing both. Those people experiencing both are happier with the
DB2 for i5/OS, so I can conclude there is a portrayal of negativity,
that must be at least somewhat off-base. If the DB2 for i5/OS were not
a real RDBMS, they would have been unable to get their job done using
the database. They are happy because they *are* getting things done,
and in their description, without so much pain. Additionally I have not
personally heard an opposite claim stated, ever, for such transitions
between DB2 for i5/OS and another database. Note: There is the
occasional poster to c.s.i.a.m who gives themselves away as a troll; so
I have seen complaints from them, but with little substance, and
ignoring every valid response and resolutions to any argument and false
claim, harping endlessly not just the integrated database but that the
entire system since its inception was a failure as a computing platform;
thus, why I reference only what I personally have heard from people, and
ignoring any baseless rants. Most other claims are just syntax and lack
of or nuances in differences in function, which is a fact that spans all
databases; i.e. some can do X, some can not do Y, some do Z differently.
You assure us that _they_ will not change their views unless the DB2
for i5/OS narrows its view, by eliminating at least one of the features
that makes it better than other databases; row level access. Since
removing that is an option completely _incompatible_ with the i5/OS,
please just get over it, as that is almost surely never going to happen.
There is then, an impasse.
Anyhow if any of the /real/ RDBMS _vendors_ share that attitude in
thinking that i5/OS is lacking a real database, then they should port
their database to the i5/OS. They can then hope to prove their point;
all the lost souls on i5/OS can finally find out what they have been
missing, and start using the real RDBMS as an alternative to the DB2 for
i5/OS. All of the bigots then also use the i5/OS, reinforcing their
prejudice by using their preferred database while ignoring the DB2 for
i5/OS. IBM can even sell them an Application Server Edition of the
i5/OS at a lower cost, since they will not be using the integrated DB2.
Regards, Chuck
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This thread ...
Re: Which of the SYSIBM tables/views show the row count for, (continued)
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.