[Info-vax] OpenVMS x86-64 and RDB and DB's in general on OpenVMS

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

David Froble skrev den 2015-06-29 18:37:
> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>> Bob Koehler skrev den 2015-06-29 15:58:
>>>   In article <mmoqdh$f5r$1 at news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm
>>>   <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> This is a non-issue, since VMS without Rdb is a dead-end anyway.
>>>
>>>     For some, yes.  For comercial success, maybe.
>>
>> I ment that it is a dead-end for VSI, of course.
>> I did not mean every VMS shop...
>>
>>>     All the VMS systems I've had over the years, not one had RDB on
>>>     it.
>>
>> OK, fine. But that was not what I ment.
>>
>> Jan-Erik.
>>
>>
>
> It's entirely understandable that VMS without RDB is useless for you. Your
> environment counts on having RDB.
>

Correct, but that was not what I said or my point. And it is "Rdb",
not "RDB". :-)

> How you get to some subset of VMS users needing RDB, to "dead-end for VSI",
> is questionable.  In your opinion, yes.  But your opinion is not universal.
>

I think there are enough VMS users that also needs/uses Rdb to make it
a dead-end for a VMS/x86 port without Rdb.

> Now, VSI is going to have to address the issue.  Apparently too many VMS
> users do need a DB, and anyone using RDB is definitely running VMS.
> Possibly an agreement with Oracle, or just providing whatever is needed for
> Oracle to support RDB on x86, or the development of another product, such
> as MariaDB, PostgreSQL, or whatever, to the point where it could easily
> replace RDB.  Note, it would be possible, though I have no idea how much
> work would be involved, to have a drop-in replacement for RDB.
>
> Also note, before Jan-Erik has another fit, that by "drop-in replacement",
> I mean just that.  Install it, no changes required, and the applications
> think they're still using RDB.  Totally functionaly equvalent.

OK, fine. No reason to disuss that since *that* it will never happen. :-)
IMHO, of course... :-)