In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel
on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:07:40 -0400
> "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote in message
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
>> on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:23:22 -0500
>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:57:28 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>> IBM won't open source DB2.
>>>> It was therefore no surprise to see IBM quickly follow up ZDNet's
>>>> article with a blunt statement: "IBM has no plans to open source DB2."
>>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>> Are you trying to make some kind of point?
>> One can guess. Apparently Ezekiel is of the opinion
>> that closed-source software such as DB2 is superior
>> to open-source efforts such as PostgreSQL, MySQL,
>> Hypersonic, or Cloudscape.
> I'm not familiar with Hypersonic
Light-duty SQL data storage/retrieval system shipped with JBoss.
> or Cloudscape.
Light-duty SQL data storage/retrieval system shipped with what
is now Glassfish. It appears to have originated from IBM, though
I'm not certain now. IBM is now sunsetting it, and Apache Derby
is its new name.
With my luck the Cloudscape DBMS mutated into Hypersonic,
just to confuse me. :-)
> But DB2 is definitely
> superior to Postgres and MySQL. It's not even close. It's like debating
> whether a Dodge Neon is comparable to a Mercedes S-class. Sure... the Neon
> is "cheaper" (as in less expensive) and probably gets better mileage. But
> nobody will take you seriously if you attempt to claim that the Neon is
> better than the big Benz.
Thank you for the analogy, but you're going to have to do
better than that. :-) Why, exactly, is DB2 superior?
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **