 
| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | [log in to unmask][log in to unmask], 4 Oct 2002 10:15:45 -0700392_iso-8859-1 Jon cross posted by permission: > It is September 1, 2009. A letter arrives from the > Sales Tax Department of [insert your favorite] State. > They wish to perform an audit of you sales tax > collections for 2006. Your back-up tapes are sitting > safely in some off-site storage facility, but where > will you restore these files? .... [...]47_4Oct200210:15: [log in to unmask] |
| Date: | Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:09:15 -0400 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> Yes, Cincom. It ran on IBM, which is perhaps the source of Zelik's
> confusion. I worked on the first Total project that Philips did, which
> was the re-engineering of a manufacturing app done with IBM's DBOMP on
> an IBM370.
>
> Total was a 'network' database, as is Image. And if Image
> wasn't a steal
> from Total, then either there's only one way to do a network database,
> or great minds think alike. Incredibly, mindbendingly, outer limits of
> coincidence, alike.
I was exposed to Total before I knew about Image. IIRC, from a Cobol POV,
you almost couldn't tell the difference between the two.
I assume you put quotes around 'network' because Total and Image are limited
Network databases. In a full network database model the master set could
also have masters above them. I believe that DECs DBMS was like this,
although I think Oracle owns it now and markets it under the name Codasyl.
|
|
|
