I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside

#**111**

"Josip Almasi" <joe (AT) vrspace (DOT) org> wrote

Quote:

BTW these days IBM had monopoly and had abused it, as was proven later.

What??? IIRC, the anti-trust division lost the case against IBM. At the
time, I was working for DEC, number two to IBM's number one. Even Ken
Olsen, the head of DEC, cautioned against finding IBM guilty.

#**112**

Josip Almasi wrote:

Quote:

Ed Prochak wrote:

Sure. But as I stated earlier, IMHO it's not up to model, it's due to
vast resources that have been spent on RDBMS research and development.

This is the one point I cannot let pass unchallenged.
When the Relational model was first being implemented into a DBMS
product, the Network Model was king. There were not vast resources
forcing the Relational Model onto the programming field. It was
practical software engineers that saw the advantages. from that grew
the behemouth that is now ORACLE. (at least that is what I understand
as the main source of "vast resources" that you mention). You are not
fighting ORACLE marketting droids in this discussion.

But maybe I misread your comment. Further detail is welcome.

OK, then let's finish, techie part is over, no reason to crosspost further.

Vast resources from the above count in brain power rather than
brainwashing power. Endless engineer-hours spent on r&d etc etc.
Plus marketing of course.

Back in the day it wasn't Oracle but IBM who pushed the tech... IIRC all
these people (Codd, Boyce, Chamberlain... except Ellison

) were with
IBM. [1]

Hmm vast dollar$ spent in R&D to develop a new technology (at that
time) that according to you and Dmitry is fundamentally less powerful.
What's the motivation of IBM? They were outwitted by their glory crazed
researchers. Good theory.

Quote:

BTW these days IBM had monopoly and had abused it, as was proven later.
And I know of NDB oldtimers still bitching about that

Even calling
Codd idiot and everyone using RDBMS too

))).
(when both side fanatics call me idiot I know I'm right

)
And IMHO Network model wasn't that much of a king as you seem to think.
I.e. I had a chance to work on a PDP-11, it's RSX OS doesn't even have
directory trees, it's a 2d matrix

Like, you cd 0,0 instead of cd /

I guess that designers thought of file system like file closet with
256x256 drawers for files

Well it didn't have dir trees but it had
versioning... and integrated DBMS

A record manager AFAIK.

There were lots of files systems that were non-hirerarchical then. But
we were talking DBMS.

Quote:

But the bottom line is, it doesn't matter if Dmitry has better model,
since IBM can invest 1000 times more engineers to work on their
software. Even if Dmitry manages to make better product, IBM will simply
buy him off. As happened with informix for their red brick [2].
BTW these days I was in informix. Didn't work on dbms but with dbms,
learned some about their inner workings anyway.

And at the end, ibm or oracle, Dmitry or someone else, all the same.
See, David doesn't beat Goliat, it's a fairy tale

Josip, you are such an optimist!!!

Quote:

Regards...

[1]
http://www.research.ibm.com/resource...passaway.shtml

good reference

Quote:

[2]
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/informix/redbrick/

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside

comp.databases comp.databases

Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside - 07-26-2006 , 04:57 PM

Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside - 07-27-2006 , 02:57 PM