[Info-vax] RDB Question

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Den 2018-12-02 kl. 20:00, skrev Dave Froble:
> On 12/2/2018 12:06 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>> Den 2018-12-02 kl. 17:15, skrev Bill Gunshannon:
>>> On 12/2/18 11:06 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 12/2/2018 9:42 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/1/18 10:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/1/2018 6:41 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25/11/2018 9:36 pm, Kerry Main wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Info-vax <info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com> On Behalf Of Richard
>>>>>>>>> Maher
>>>>>>>>> via Info-vax
>>>>>>>>> Sent: November 24, 2018 9:37 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
>>>>>>>>> Cc: Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS at hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] RDB Question
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24/11/2018 9:20 am, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2018 9:59 AM, Kerry Main wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> For future consideration:
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://sharksql.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty cool stuff ..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Very interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did they actually sell this?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems to be similar to MS LINQ but just for C.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Arne
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LINQ is a fucking desease! Designed for useless OO programmers who
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> know SQL or the importants of a properly designed DB.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just like React/Reduct, Vue, Angular, Typescrip, Babel, JSX, etc
>>>>>>>>> are for
>>>>>>>>> wanker OO programmers who don't no the DOM, Javascript, HTMLS,
>>>>>>>>> and CSS
>>>>>>>>> :-(
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Richard - I am curious to hear what you think about this:
>>>>>>>> <http://sharksql.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See presentation on capabilities under Documentation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kerry Main
>>>>>>>> Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds really good. My question is "Why?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good to have if Oracle abandons VMS but that would be enough to
>>>>>>> kill VMS
>>>>>>> on its own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like another who doesn't get out much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard, do you think everyone using VMS also uses Oracle?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, Dave, Oracle is also the sole provider for RDB.  If they
>>>>> abandon VMS RDB goes the way of the dodo, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> bill
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's my assumption that Richard was not talking about Rdb.
>>>>
>>>> VMS is the only user of Rdb.  To stop providing it for VMS means to
>>>> totally abandon the product.
>>>
>>> If they are abandoning VMS how would they continue to maintain RdB?
>>>
>>>>                                Doesn't seem a wise move for what
>>>> might be a profitable product.
>>>
>>> Like most of the IT world today I doubt they see anything VMS as
>>> potentially profitable.
>>>
>>>>                          Not claiming Larry is wise, but, he's wise
>>>> enough to own an island in Hawaii.
>>>>
>>>> Regardless, I'll extend my question to Rdb.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone think that everyone using VMS also uses Rdb?
>>>
>>> I expect that number is very small.  I know that when the University
>>> was still a VMS shop we used Oracle, and not RdB.  Over the years I
>>> have worked with a number of other VMS shops some government, some
>>> DOD, other education sites and small business sites.  I have never
>>> seen RdB.
>>>
>>
>> Both Classic and Rdb was once popular on VMS. But of course (and not
>> counting the applications) it is easier to move a Classic database
>> off VMS to something else, than to move/port an Rdb database.
> 
> A rather important point.  Probably much easier for an Oracle Classic user 
> to move off VMS, and therefore for those desiring to do so, more of them 
> would have left.
> 
>> But then, I do not understand why David pushed that "everyone uses Rdb".
> 
> I didn't.  I was replying to Richard's claim.  Read above.
> 

I did. He wrote "if Oracle abandons VMS, that would be enough to
kill VMS on its own." Not that "everyone using VMS also uses Oracle".

The point is of course that enough (not "all") VMS customers are using
*some* Oracle product.


>> No one has ever claimed that. What has been said is that enough of the
>> VMS users run Rdb to be an issue if Rdb would be removed from the picture.
> 
> And I do believe that.  Rdb was/is popular with some VMS users.  Nor did 
> they have an easy path to move from VMS, so probably many are still on 
> VMS.  I don't know the numbers.  VSI and Oracls most likely do have a 
> decent idea of the numbers.
> 
>> Of course not *every* VMS installation uses Rdb. But enough of them to be
>> a serious issue for the VMS users at large.
> 
> Losing any VMS users would be a bad thing for VSI, and for the rest of us.
> 
>>  > I have never seen RdB.
> 
> Bill must not get out much either ....
> 
> :-)
> 
>> What one single poster here has seen or not seen, doesn't matter much.
>> How many current customer meeting have you attended lately?
> 
> And this was my point with Richard.  His world is not everyone's world.
> 
>>>>                                                           Although, I
>>>> will stipulate that all Rdb users also use VMS.
>>>>
>>>> Just saying, I think Richard has some tunnel vision.  He uses Oracle,
>>>> therefore everyone must use Oracle.  It just ain't so.
>>>
>>> I think it is more-so than you think.  I would bet that of those
>>> VMS users with VMS based DBs there are more Oracle than RdB.
>>>
>>
>> I might have been like that some time. But remember that the run-time
>> option for Rdb was once included in the base VMS licence. And also
>> that moving a Classic DB to something else is easier then porting
>> an Rdb DB to something else.
>>
>> One also has to count not the number of users of VMS, but the total
>> market value (the net income for VSI) for those sites. A few large
>> banks using Rdb can easily outnumber a number of smaller non-Rdb sites.
> 
> Yep!  Money talks ....
>