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

[David Froble]

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> 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... :-)
> 
> 

Actually, I think that it NEEDS to happen, unless VSI can work a deal 
with Oracle.  Rdb (if you insist) is dead without VMS.  At least as it 
now stands.  So, VSI will be doing something to allow Oracle to continue 
to make some coins.  I'd think that Oracle should reward VSI for this in 
some financial manner.  Percent of service revenue.  Something.

Failing that, then long term I'd think it would be good for VSI to 
pursue a project, not necessarily all in-house, to develop a RDBMS that 
would be a drop in replacement for Rdb.  Perhaps one of the existing 
RDBMS products.  Perhaps all new.  Perhaps first one, and then the other.

 From things you've written in the past, I have the impression (which 
could be wrong) that your customer(s) are forking over more dinero to 
Oracle than to HP.  That leads me to consider that a RDBMS can produce 
better revenue than an OS.  Feel free to correct me.  (As if you haven't 
always ..)