"Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3F7264EC.2050007@attbi.com...
> > The Standard Edition of Oracle is licensed to work for
> > only boxes with 2 or less CPUs
>
> 4 or less.
>

4 or fewer.

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote :-

>But you don't. Because
>not once in all of the times I have purchased software
>have I ever been asked to sign an NDA: Not once!

Not once I have been told that by a s/w industry worker,
much less by an academician, that if u include cost of
developer and DBA, TCO of Oracle starts equalling TCO
of DB2, bcos it means that Oracle developers/DBAs are
cheaper to hire than DB2.

It is clear that ur opinion on the subject is close to
worthless as u have repeatedly demonstrated that u r
biased towards Oracle.

U have proved what I said earlier. It is not necessary
that a biased post towards a product has to come from
an employee of IBM or Oracle.

rk-

Daniel Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1064444801.126413@yasure>...
> Database Guy wrote:

> I kept mentioning them only because no-one here has been willing to
> acknowledge that some things included in one product may cost extra in another.

They may, but nobody is seriously suggesting that Oracle has
substantially greater functionality over DB2, or vice versa - surely?


> I grabbed two examples. I could have grabbed two
> different examples

But equally spurious.

> Or ten.

Go on then.

> It isn't the examples themselves that have value.

Not when *you* make them up, that's for sure.

> Rather the fact that one, in performing a price comparison,
> must be comparing two entities configured
> to have equal capabilities.

Which we have here. Yet DB2 costs half.

> I presume you'd think it smart to buy an 18 wheeler rather than a
> Porsche for your car because the
> 18 wheeler cost less.

I don't buy cars. Ever heard of global warming?

> This may come as a shock to you but at the
> university we don't teach product
> loyalty as part of our curriculum. That is one of the values of
> something we treasure called academic freedom.

ROFL - your web links point to your Oracle education offering (nothing
else). Your only technical advice is posted to Oracle forums (not
other DBMS's), even though of course you claim "experience" with other
products. Half your posts repeat Oracle propaganda to belittle rival
products. How is this independent?


DG

This is so cool! Hopping between newsgroups and starting to think
that this multi-headed, cross-posted troll thread THING will outlive
Oracle, DB2, Informix... and all the rest.

Well okay, Informix at least :-)

BTW Obnoxio, loved your Guacamole Bay post. Hopefully everyone can
agree about hating Bush and Blair, if nothing else.


DG

> nobody is seriously suggesting that Oracle has
> substantially greater functionality over DB2, or vice versa - surely?

Can I play ?

> Go on then.

Thanks ...

Real Application Clustering
Multi Version Read Consistency
Reverse-Key Indexes
Index Organized Tables
Stored, Compressed Bitmapped indexes
Bitmapped Join Indexes
Range Partitioning
List Partitioning
Range Hash Partitioning
Range List Partitioning
Bounded Recovery Time
Multiple Standy Destinations
Automated Log Shipping
Zero Loss Log Shipping
Standby Failover
Standby Switchover
Flashback Query
SQL Log Mining
Online Rename, Merge and Drop columns
Online Re-org, Move or Defrag
Strong Authentication Support (PKI)
Secure Identity Proxying
Virtual Private Database (Policy based security)
Label Security (Label based security)
Fine Grained Auditing (Policy based)
Any level of Security Certification
External Tables
Multi Table Insert
Transportable Tablespaces
Resource Management
Automated Memory Management
XML Schema Support
Workspace Management

Your turn now. Let the fun (re) begin


Yours, Nobody
Still Comfortably Numb.

> nobody is seriously suggesting that Oracle has
> substantially greater functionality over DB2, or vice versa - surely?

Can I play ?

> Go on then.

Thanks ...

Real Application Clustering
Multi Version Read Consistency
Reverse-Key Indexes
Index Organized Tables
Stored, Compressed Bitmapped indexes
Bitmapped Join Indexes
Range Partitioning
List Partitioning
Range Hash Partitioning
Range List Partitioning
Bounded Recovery Time
Multiple Standy Destinations
Automated Log Shipping
Zero Loss Log Shipping
Standby Failover
Standby Switchover
Flashback Query
SQL Log Mining
Online Rename, Merge and Drop columns
Online Re-org, Move or Defrag
Strong Authentication Support (PKI)
Secure Identity Proxying
Virtual Private Database (Policy based security)
Label Security (Label based security)
Fine Grained Auditing (Policy based)
Any level of Security Certification
External Tables
Multi Table Insert
Transportable Tablespaces
Resource Management
Automated Memory Management
XML Schema Support
Workspace Management

Your turn now. Let the fun (re) begin


Yours, Nobody
Still Comfortably Numb.

Obviously sent from a 2 node RAC cluster. The first post was simply
gratuitous, the second mere stupidity.

Mark Townsend wrote:

> Obviously sent from a 2 node RAC cluster. The first post was simply
> gratuitous, the second mere stupidity.

You might think I couldn't possibly comment.

--
Ciao,
The Obnoxious One

"Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"

Mark Townsend wrote:

> > nobody is seriously suggesting that Oracle has
>> substantially greater functionality over DB2, or vice versa - surely?
>
> Can I play ?
>
>> Go on then.
>
> Thanks ...

<Buzzword bingo snipped>

> Your turn now. Let the fun (re) begin

I'm sure every vendor can dress up a bunch of useless proprietary extensions
and product design defects as features. )

--
Ciao,
The Obnoxious One

"Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bl0lt0$6l3rb$2@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Mark Townsend wrote:
>
> > > nobody is seriously suggesting that Oracle has
> >> substantially greater functionality over DB2, or vice versa - surely?
> >
> > Can I play ?
> >
> >> Go on then.
> >
> > Thanks ...
>
> <Buzzword bingo snipped>
>
> > Your turn now. Let the fun (re) begin
>
> I'm sure every vendor can dress up a bunch of useless proprietary
extensions
> ... as features. )

Could we call them "datablades"?