[Info-vax] Layered products, the HP view !?!

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

David Froble skrev den 2015-06-20 03:24:
> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>
>> IMHO, it would have to be somehing like the embedded databases
>> like those that Android uses internally. A database like Rdb is
>> best left for the heavy load with the applications.
>
>
> I don't understand this.

I understand that from your earlier posts around databases
and RMS as an possible alternative.

There is a *huge* difference between Rdb, DB2, MS SQL Server,
Oracle 12 and similar database products on one hand and the
different embedded databases used in handheld devices and
similar on the other.

OK, both has "tables", "rows" and so on, but that his
irrelevant in this case. They have wastly different
runtime environments.

> A database is a database, regardless of many things.

Of course not. There are hugh differences. Think about the
differences between the Android system running your phone
and a full VMS server system.

> 1 table or 100 or ????,  One column in a table or many columns.
> One row in a table, or many.

*Those* things is irrelevant, yes. They are not the differences
between the "large" databases and the "embedded" databases.

>
> Now, if you're saying this from a cost perspective, as things are now, I'd
> agree with you.  But from a technical perspective, I don't understand why
> there might be a problem.

OK, fine.

>
> If the idiots that gave RDB to Oracle hadn't done so, perhaps DEC would
> still exist, and perhaps it would be Ken who owned the island, not Larry.
> DEC could have ported RDB to other OSs and perhaps been the dominate
> database vendor.

The Rdb port to Win NT was drawn back due to lack of an supported
BLISS compiler on that platform.

Yes, it would been nice to still have Rdb amongst the standard
VMS LP's, but it would probably not change much for VMS as such.