RE: Creating dds source from SQL Tables

["DeLong, Eric" <EDeLong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I forced myself to not send this earlier.....  but here's what I think is 
behind the "DBA Shame Game".....

Oh, I know why the Oracle and MS DBAs degrade System i....  The know they'd be 
out of a job if that was the platform adopted at their places of employment.  
They know that their "skills" are basically the equivalent of DB janitor and 
sometimes handyman, and that if they DON'T convince their bosses stick with the 
muck that THEY know, then they soon become irrelavent (and broke). 

Human nature is to categorize/group things...  Us and them, friend or foe, like 
or unlike...  Anything outside of one's realm of experience is suspect and not 
to be trusted.  They believe that SOMEONE has to manage the DB, to expand table 
spaces and rebuild access paths, manage authorities, and so forth.  We know 
that the OS is fully capable of handling these tasks.  Their experience tells 
them that, without SOMEONE to care for the DB, that it will fail.  When we tell 
them that we don't need a DBA to babysit the DB, they think our system is 
doomed to fail.  How can they accept the fact that half their "skills" are 
meaningless in an integrated environment like DB2/i5OS?

Eric


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael Ryan
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 11:20 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Creating dds source from SQL Tables


That may make it non-standard, but it doesn't mean it's non-good. If
the standard is everyone has to work 100 hours a week, but a few
people only work 50, the people working less are non-standard. They're
also happier. :)

> Unlike Oracle and SQL server, I do not need to gather statistics,
> rebuild existing indexes, manage table spaces, or have headaches when
> updating server hardware. Does this make DB2 on our beloved box a
> non-standard database?