[Info-vax] Message from HP.

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Bill Gunshannon wrote 2013-12-11 15:52:
> In article <l89tcr$nbo$1 at news.albasani.net>,
> 	Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com> writes:
>> Bill Gunshannon wrote 2013-12-11 15:08:
>>> In article <l899ro$11t$2 at dont-email.me>,
>>> 	David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>>> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>>>> As far as I see it, VMS is of low value without Rdb.
>>>>> I do not see a "newVMS" that hasn't Rdb in the picture.
>>>>> And Rdb is, as I'm sure everyone know, not owned by HP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is probably more than a few VMS sites that do not use RDB.  Just
>>>> because you use it doesn't mean that your environment is typical.
>>>
>>> Other than running on VMS, what does RDB offer that is not available
>>> from any other DBMS?
>>>
>>
>> Don't know where to start.
>> Anyone that have used Rdb know about it strengths.
>>
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems
>
>
> Comments?
>
> bill
>

No, none realy. It all looks good apart from a one "No" and one "?"
that today should be "Yes" for Rdb under "Indexes".

And of course the line of "No" in "OS Support", but that was a
no-brainer, not? :-)

What is not visible in that table is the OS integration and
general ease-of-use that makes Rdb to stand out. The management
tools for backup/export/import/unload/load and so on.

So, on *VMS*, Rdb is far better then the alternatives.