On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:48:31 -0700 Duane Percox said:
>Jeff Kell writes:
>>Another issue I haven't heard mentioned or discussed is that of DBMS
>>software.  Now that "open" systems exist, the "proprietary" component, if
>>not the "dominant" component seems to be the DBMS software of choice.
>>While an application may run on umpteen platforms, it likely requires a
>>specific DBMS (Oracle, Sybase, Informix, etc).  Once you invest in a DBMS,
>>it will then dictate your choices (does it run on FooBase?) as you are not
>>likely to replicate DBMS investments (if you can and do, I envy your budget).
>>
>>Not sure where I'm headed with this argument so I'll hush :-)  Just food for
>>thought.
>
>Where you're headed, If I may be so bold, is to the conclusion that when it
>comes to complete application systems there isn't true openness.
 
Thanks Duane for more or less hitting the nail on the head...
 
>And how 'open' can anything be that depends upon a particular vendor for its
>feature set, longevity and support. As you correctly point out the DBMS
>vendors have this problem.
 
The DBMS vendors are, IMHO, running the show now (that was my point).  You
can get a serious unix box pretty cheap (relatively speaking) these days.
But as Ron Seybold pointed out in an article in the 3000 NewsWire some months
ago, to make it "viable" you need a backup system, a spooler, and many other
tools.  You "can" make do without some of these (if you have the time, money
and personnel to support the raw system without tools) but you most certainly
cannot do without a DBMS for most applications.  The cost of the DBMS is a
significant fraction of, if not more than the cost of the machine.
 
This is where MPE/Image shines -- an integrated OS/DBMS.  Unfortunately it is
not SQL/relational friendly enough for many applications (the same could be
said for Allbase if you're comparing against the "popular" DBMS systems).
But it kicks some serious butt without need for a raw file system or other
add-on fat.
 
>I've always thought that 'open' was something not realistically attainable
>in the truest sense of the word, but worth striving for nonetheless.
 
Computer systems have come close to "open".  Unix/posix is relatively "open".
The differentiation now lies in the hands of the DBMS vendors, and since HP,
IBM, and a select few others even offer a native DBMS, I find the whole open
systems concept (driven by hardware vendors) somewhat ironic now that software
vendors (Oracle/Informix/Sybase/etc) are running the show.
 
>Ok - thats my brain dump on this subject for today. I hope I didn't boor
>too many with my ramblings.
 
Me too :-)
 
>I now return to my standard language of choice (Cobol) and my platform
>of choice (HP3000/MPE), where I use my DBMS of choice (Image/SQL) from my
>desktop system of choice (P-166, Win-95).
 
While I'm not an adamant (sp?) fan of COBOL, we use it, you can always
find somebody to work with it, and it's limited enough to be relatively
immune to nightmarish bugs (memory leaks, errant pointers, etc).  I will
concur with the remainder of your statement despite your outclassing my
P-120 :-)
 
Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>