On 16 Oct 2006 11:14:20 -0700, "dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

<SNIP>

Surely this would be no more difficult than moving from , say, D3 to
JBase, or UnidData to D3 - choose the flavour of the day...

It always amuses me when I hear how "non-standard" each SQL
implementation is, compared to good ole Pick - what a joke !

Almost ever MV software house I have worked for over the last 25
years, has carefully written code in a limited sub-set of the MV Basic
syntax that is reasonably common to most implementations. They have
then used a pre-processor to generate code for each implementation
they require.

The previous company that I worked for, developed Browser based
systems that could be switched from Access to SQL Server to Oracle.
Basically they employed the same technique as all those MV people ie
steer away from the really esoteric quirks of each implementation and
write a few routines that iron out the remaining differences.

IMHO, SQL will be around long after the current generation of CDP'ers
have retired.

Dave

Dave Goldfinch wrote:
Maybe not -- didn't mean to suggest it, but many do suggest or think
that SQL is more standardized.
Because SQL is prescriptive with its schema, rather than descriptive
(as with MV dicts), there is more specified to the actual DBMS.
However, I would never suggest it is easy to move from one MV flavor to
another.

Yes, as will MV. Removal of old technologies is far, far harder than
introducing new ones.

So, I think your points were 1. that SQL will be around for a long,
long time. Agreed. 2. It isn't easy to switch from one MV flavor to
another. Agreed. But I will suggest that it is amazingly reasonable
to switch from some flavors of MV to other flavors given that there
have been zero industry standards announced in MV. The move from Prime
Information on Primos to UniData on AIX that we did after others had
gone before us on the same VAR solution, was a lot easier than a Novell
version upgrade done around the same time, for example. Cheers! --dawn

On 16 Oct 2006 18:48:37 -0700, "dawn" <dawnwolthuis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

I did not mean to say that it isn't easy to switch MV flavours. As I
said, most software houses, in my experience, cater for this.

I do contend that it is as easy to change SQL platforms as it is to
change MV flavours with the proviso that you do not use the more
exotic "features" implemented by some providers.

There were some guidelines for MV standards when the Spectrum
Manufacturers Group was in existence, although they never had the
authority of a published Satandard..

What little of Novell I have seen, makes me very pleased that I have
not seen any more !!

Dave

"Ed Sheehan" wrote:
Ed, if they're paying you enough for a good long period of time, then
do the jump, and good luck!

People have a tendency to want to toss MV because they have no idea of
what it is. In your case:
- Is the end-user aware that Universe is one of two MV DBMS products
sold by IBM under the DB2 banner?
- What is it costing to convert the software from MV to Oracle? Is
this company aware that ONware can run MV code directly against an
Oracle back-end? They can then create new SQL queries to run against
the existing data and get the best of both worlds. (jBASE may be
capable as well but not as readily as ONware I suspect.)
- What do they hope to gain from moving to Oracle? Has anyone asked
IBM to compare or profile the app and DBMS with whatever it is that
Oracle is offering?

Can someone provide some realistic numbers here which compare the
number of combined U2 licenses being sold these days with the number
of DB2 licenses? I'd guess the numbers are close and this is good
marketing fodder that people should use if it can be verified.

T

Inline...
"Tony Gravagno" <g6q3x9lu53001 (AT) sneakemail (DOT) com.invalid> wrote

If it turns out to be a smart career move, I'll do it. Of course, I'll need
to determine if I like the environment etc., but in many areas in Pick,
things seem to be drying up. I know some niches are still thriving, but it's
heard for me to see the big Pick picture from my vantage point. Are there
struggling Oracle programmers/dba's?

By the time I got there, it was already decided. They're about 25% converted
now. I'm sure they were pitched well by the Oracle team. Their legacy staff
seem to have no interest in staying beyond go-live, even if they could cut
over.

Can't be super specific, but in excess of $10 mil.

From the users point of view, it's shiny and new and has windows 'n mice.
The four basic food groups. Nobody else is too concerned with techy issues.
They are aware of the Oracle reputation, so they feel it'll provide or can
be made to provide whatever buzzword du jour is required down the road.

david,

you didn't appear to understand my point
i understand you are a PICK developer
i understand you have no soul
PICK is merely a collection of concepts
if you were a software engineer you would understand that

"qbit" <tronic5572 (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Dan, you've been doing well lately, it's a shame to see you go back to
your old habits.

i am trying but that was a direct attack.

"qbit" wrote:
No, that was a difference of opinion. Seriously, your comments lately
have been fitting right in. Try not to "go off" like you're sometimes
inclined to do. I think we'll all enjoy the discussions more. Rather
than putting you on my ignore list like I used to, these days I
actually make sure I read whatever you have to say.

Take a look at some of the "attacks" I get involved with in this forum
and elsewhere. It may be hard to believe but some of these people
that I fight with have been my friends for anywhwere up to 24 years
and we get together whenever we can. With few exceptions, this
"thing" we do here isn't personal, it's passion. When people get
heated up about a topic they care about, it's easier to be more
direct. You certainly feel that from time to time. Cut other people
some slack and they'll do the same.

Cheers,
T

i am a man called horse