We can definitely agree with the last paragraph - it's a continual source of
annoyance (BTW even the DML has multiple gratuitous differences).

I know that a database on MVS is a pure administrative entity, unlike UDB
where it's a connection target.

For the rest, we'll have to agree to differ.

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:j47jb.640$sA4.52401@news.uswest.net...
> > "Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message
> > news:Tesib.1707$bY6.89613@news.uswest.net...
> > > "Mark Yudkin" <myudkinATcompuserveDOTcom@nospam.org> wrote in message
> > > news:bmdigf$508$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> > > > Only on z/OS. For UDB, CREATE DATABASE is a command, not a SQL
> > statement.
> > > I
> > > > do not know why.
> > >
> > > A database in DB2 for z/OS and OS/390 is totally different than a
> database
> > > in DB2 for Windows, Unix, and Linux.
> > >
> > > A database is in DB2 for Windows, Unix, and Linux is "more like" a DB2
> > > Subsystem in DB2 for z/OS and OS/390.
> > >
> > > A database in DB2 for z/OS and OS/390 is "more like" a schema in DB2
for
> > > Windows, Unix, and Linux.
> > >
> > > Before anyone blows a fuse, I said "more like" and not "the same as."
> > >
> "Mark Yudkin" <myudkinATcompuserveDOTcom@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:bmis0p$cba$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> > IMHO, "more like" is still a wild overstatement.
> >
> > A database in DB2 UDB is "nothing like" a DB2 subsystem in DB2 for z/OS.
A
> > DB2 for z/OS subsystem is "more like" a DB2 instance in DB2 UDB.
> >
> > Schemas in z/OS and UDB are almost "the same" - they are the object
owner
> in
> > both cases. One does not "connect" to a schema in either system, one
> > connects to databases.
>
> I never said that one connects to a schema. In DB2 for OS/390 you connect
to
> a DB2 sub-system. In DB2 for Linux, Unix, and Windows you connect to a
> database. A DB2 for Linux, Unix, and Windows database has its own system
> catalog, just like a DB2 for OS/390 subsystem. That is why I said (among
> many other reasons) that a DB2 for Linux, Unix, and Windows database is
> closest to a DB2 for OS/390 sub-system. I think you misread my statement.
>
> The term database in DB2 for OS/390 has a totally different meaning.
> Creating a database in DB2 for OS/390 is an administrative grouping of
> objects (sort of like a schema), which is why it is an SQL statement (to
> answer your original question).
>
> A DB2 OS/390 installation can have multiple sub-systems. All sub-systems
in
> that installation share the same DB2 code.
>
> A DB2 for Linux, Unix, and Windows instance can have multiple databases.
All
> databases in the instance share the same DB2 code.
>
> The IBM developers who created the original DB2 for Linux, Unix, and
Windows
> (which was first released as OS/2 Database Manager) paid little attention
of
> DB2 mainframe conventions other than DML (but even that was not completely
> compatible). At that time, the OS/2 Database development team reported up
> through OS/2 development and had relatively little interface with Santa
> Teresa. Customers who wanted to develop mainframe applications on PC's
using
> Micro-Focus Cobol where told by IBM to use XDB (a DB2 mainframe compatible
> database that ran on PC's).
>
>
>
>