Hi,
It is probably true that other database administrators and developers have
a jaundiced view of the iSeries and think it is not capable of what they do.
That is patent nonsense, but how do they know that? Yes, some will have the
attitude that, if there is any access other than SQL, they are not in
control of things.
May be other DBAs fell being redundant on the iSeries, because the system
makes a lot of work for them.
For example they have not to care about thinks like:
- Table Spaces
- Buffers
- Automatically running statistics
- Reorganisation of indexes
- and ...
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
Birgitta Hauser
"Shoot for the moon, even if you miss, you'll land among the stars." (Les
Brown)
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." (Derek Bok)
"What is worse than training your staff and losing them? Not training them
and keeping them!"
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Vernon Hamberg
Gesendet: Saturday, March 08, 2008 18:27
An: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Betreff: Re: Which of the SYSIBM tables/views show the row count for
Joe
Agreed. Dave has said things that seem to focus less on true
technology then on the use of that technology. Anyone who has been a
DBA in any other RDBMS could work in the iSeries RDBMS with very
little change in technique, I believe. Yes, they all would have to
forget about some of the convenient but non-standard extensions, like
CONVERT in SQL Server that I'd love to have on the iSeries - that's
another thread I might start!!
Now I also know that Dave is all for promoting the iSeries - look at
this thread or another one where he speaks of the presentation he
gave to promote it where he is working. It seems to me that we face a
marketing issue yet once again. It is probably true that other
database administrators and developers have a jaundiced view of the
iSeries and think it is not capable of what they do. That is patent
nonsense, but how do they know that? Yes, some will have the attitude
that, if there is any access other than SQL, they are not in control
of things. I agree that having the additional inroad is not a loss,
rather is a gain. But some of those in the DBA world just WILL not
see it that way.
So therein lies the problem, methinks. And now back to convert TOD to
seconds and microseconds.
And then some sleep.
Vern
At 11:16 AM 3/8/2008, you wrote:
Dave Odom wrote:
- SQL is the ONLY access language to get to the data, not some
old record-at-a-time processing back door technique like READ,
WRITE, CHAIN, etc.,
To say that something is inferior because it has MORE features makes no
sense. Calling ISAM a back door is elitism. Forcing someone to use
SQL only is technological fascism.
SQL is a good thing. So is native access.
Just my opinion.
Joe
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
midrange.com
