I missed this part in my previous response...
Does anyone remember why there never was a 9.1?
We seem to have gone directly from 9.0.x to 9.2.0!
[Did I miss somethng while taking a nap sometime recently?]
Don Granaman
[certifiable OraSaurus]
- Original Message -
To: Multiple
No there was never a 6.1 or a 6.2 unless I missed a meeting.
The latest version of 6 I worked on was 6.0.37.
Regards,
Mike Hately
-Original Message-
Sent: 25 June 2002 18:09
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
There was a 6.1 and/or 6.2? I went from 6.0.36 straight to 7.2.
of list ORACLE-L
Oggetto: RE: Difference Between DBMS/RDBMS
Also a bit about Larry luring IBM engeneers promising that they would become
millionares with Oracle. He was right.
[ Ferenc Mantfeld ] the surest way to have become a millionaire in the
stock market over the last 2 years, was if you
In fact, there was a 6.1. Lasted only
less than a year. It was one of the
very early Parallel Server versions
available. Only ran on VMS, IIRC.
At least, that's the only port of it
I managed to install.
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
No there was never
Maybe coz 9.2 sounds more reliable than 9.1 :)
Alexandre
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 10:58 AM
I missed this part in my previous response...
Does anyone remember why there never was a 9.1?
We seem to
Live and learn =)
I wasn't using VMS at the time but all the same, I'm surprised I haven't
heard about it.
Many thanks,
Mike
-Original Message-
Sent: 26 June 2002 11:18
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
In fact, there was a 6.1. Lasted only
less than a year. It was one of the
The surest way to instantly become a millionaire in
today's climate is to
take your next pay cheque and go to beautiful Italy
(convert to Lire),
though the experience may be short-lived.
In fact, since last January, Italy uses Euro ... and on the current trend it may not
be long before a USD
Didn't Larry call you direct to let you know Mike?. Very inconsiderate of
him
-Original Message-
Sent: 26 June 2002 11:44
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Live and learn =)
I wasn't using VMS at the time but all the same, I'm surprised I haven't
heard about it.
Many thanks,
15:08
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: Difference Between DBMS/RDBMS
Oh you bunch of young whipper-snappers!
A long time ago in a place far-away, we started with simple
File Systems.
Then came ISAM file systems.
These begate DBMS systems. Note there was no 'R
I was quite upset myself. It's like he just doesn't care any more.
You were a VMS bloke at one point; Didn't you use 6.1?
=)
Mike
-Original Message-
Sent: 26 June 2002 12:14
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Didn't Larry call you direct to let you know Mike?. Very
Would that be more unbreakable ???
--
| Brian McGraw /* DBA */ Infinity Insurance |
| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
--
-Original Message-
Gorbatchev
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 5:24 AM
To: Multiple
slowly standing - trembling, with creaks and pops as he rises Overlays in
Turbo Pascal
One of the more challenging aspects of writing Pro*C user exit code for
Forms 2.3 on a DOS client running against an Oracle 5 database was trying to
link 1,000 or so C functions (at one function per file for
full
form i also knew.
and
also that all dbms have the features of rdbms also
then,
what is the difference ??
santosh
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Marcello SavinoSent:
Tuesday, June 25, 2002 4:58 PMTo: Multiple recipients
i give up the R, is that the difference?
joe
Santosh Varma wrote:
could any body point me the difference(s) between DBMS and RDBMS ??
because in DBMS also as in RDBMS, we can related two or more
tables..if a column exists in another table for relation ??
Thanks and regards,
Santosh
DBMS is broad term, It covers Relational,
heirarchical and network database management systems.
Regards
Tripat Singh
- Original Message -
From:
Marcello Savino
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 4:58
PM
Subject: R: Difference
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:18
PM
Subject: RE: Difference Between
DBMS/RDBMS
full
form i also knew.
and
also that all dbms have the features of rdbms also
then, what is the difference ??
santosh
-Original Message
Between
DBMS/RDBMS
full
form i also knew.
and
also that all dbms have the features of rdbms also
then, what is the difference ??
santosh
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Marcello SavinoSent:
Tuesday, June 25
-Original Message-From: Marcello Savino
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 25 June 2002
12:28To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: R:
Difference Between DBMS/RDBMS
DBMS
=Data Base Management System
RDBMS=Relational Data Base Management System
But actually i
in the
mainframe world.
Yechiel AdarMehish
- Original Message -
From:
Santosh
Varma
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 2:18
PM
Subject: RE: Difference Between
DBMS/RDBMS
full
form i also knew.
and
also that all dbms have
Oh you bunch of young whipper-snappers!
A long time ago in a place far-away, we started with simple File Systems.
Then came ISAM file systems.
These begate DBMS systems. Note there was no 'R' in original DBMS systems.
Some of these were simply an extention to ISAM files that allowed (and
only fool's like you can point such differences...when not able to find
valid differences.
-Original Message-
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:54 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
i give up the R, is that the difference?
joe
Santosh Varma wrote:
could any body point me
Ah yes, what newcomers to the computer age! The part I always find
fascinating is that when the relational ideas were coming together around
the time Codd made his 12 rules, the big question was: will a relational
database ever be practical?. Another point is that there were many
competitors to
Erm, programmed at college on something called a Sinclair ZX80 Spectrum 1K
ram !!
-Original Message-
Sent: 25 June 2002 15:58
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Tom,
As I recall DB2 on a PC came about way back in the dark days of the 8080
processor and DOS (no version)
did you ever read a basic college level textbook on database technology?
google search on codd date rdbms yielded the following:
http://www.palslib.com/Fundamentals/The_Relational_Model.html
enjoy,
ep
On 25 Jun 2002 at 1:48, Santosh Varma wrote:
could any body point me the difference(s)
Santosh, byte me. Since if you got off your a$$ and did some research
you'd find out the differences.
joe
Santosh Varma wrote:
only fool's like you can point such differences...when not able to find
valid differences.
-Original Message-
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:54 PM
To:
Oracle was the first commercial Realtional Database Management System.
And it was relational from day one (version two :), and it was built with
relational theory in mind. IBM was the first to implement RDBMS though.
It was called System R, or something, later it became known as DB2.
Take a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...snip...]
Yeah, it's good to be old and reflect on the twists turns we went through
to make things work. Anyone remember programming with less than 1MB of ram? I
remember trying to make things work on 16K.
In 1967 I learned machine language programming
I've used Atari 800XL (still have it).
JP
On Tuesday 25 June 2002 17:13, you wrote:
Erm, programmed at college on something called a Sinclair ZX80 Spectrum 1K
ram !!
-Original Message-
Sent: 25 June 2002 15:58
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Tom,
As I recall
Heh, I started programming in PL/1 with DL/1 databases.
All hierarchical and you had to navigate round the tree using calls like
GN (get next) and GU (get unique). Oh the memories!
Regards,
Mike Hately
__Reply Separator
Author: Mercadante; Thomas F [EMAIL
Hello,
I would have to look at my (very dusty) notes to check on the system
attributes and other particulars, but I recall using a system called RAX
(relational something something), running on a IBM mainframe (OS/MVS ?), in
1964, at the Univ. of R.I. The execute command was /end run. I can not
My Z-80 based PC had 64K (useful only 48). That was the standard
architecture for Z80 4.77MHz 8-)
--
Alexandre
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:13 PM
Erm, programmed at college on something called a Sinclair
In 1982 ANSI charged its X3H2 committee with defining a standard relational database.
IBM became committed to SQL as the standard database language. The resultind ANSI
standard is largly based on DB2 SQL.
Dave
-Original Message-
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:08 AM
To: Multiple
Title: RE: Difference Between DBMS/RDBMS
That's nothing. I use to bang the rocks together to make the sand from which the silicon was extracted that was used to create the first memory chips
Jerry Whittle
ACIFICS DBA
NCI Information Systems Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
618-622-4145
A - but is a system truely Relational if they don't support foreign
keys?
That did not happen within Oracle-Land until release 7 (maybe it was in 6.2
- I forget).
Anybody remember why there was never a release 6.1 - we went from 6.0
directly to 6.2???
Correct answer gets a virtual beer.
Ooh, someone needs a chill pill.
I suggest when you are asking such a basic question you refrain from
insulting one of the more respected members of this list.
Regards
Lee
-Original Message-
Sent: 25 June 2002 14:38
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
only fool's like you
Tom
I don't have the book here at work, so I'm doing this from memory.
IBM created an experimental relational database named System R, which is
usually acknowledged as the first RDBMS. Being a large bureaucratic
organization that was making a fortune on non-relational databases, IBM did
AFAIK, RDB was DEC's Relational offering and was only available on VAXen,
and eventually Alphas. It was preceeded by DEC's CODASYL DBMS, known
generically as DBMS. Perhaps IBM had an RDB, too, since the names are
generic enough.
I worked extensively with DEC's DBMS and COBOL in my first
Dave - And since Oracle had bet its company on the SQL language, it was
well-positioned to ride that horse to victory. Ironic that for so many years
it appears that Oracle reaped so much more benefit from SQL than IBM did.
Dennis Williams
DBA
Lifetouch, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original
Nicolai,
Thank you very much. Very interesting paper.
mkb
--- Nicolai Tufar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oracle was the first commercial Realtional Database
Management System.
And it was relational from day one (version two :),
and it was built with
relational theory in mind. IBM was the
Title: RE: Difference Between DBMS/RDBMS
Alexandre,
CP/M. That brings back fond memories. Just last night I was looking for something in my attic and stumbled upon my first computer - an Amstrad PCW8256. If I remember correctly the 8 was for the Z80 chip and the 256 was the memory in KB
3K of RAM available on the VIC-20. The other 5K were taken up by the
operating system. I had a terminal emulator program that allowed me to
dial-up at 300 baud and run an IBM mainframe from home. Real bleeding-edge
stuff at the time (LOL).
When the incompetent secretaries got mad about being replaced with
computers, and their
union got pissy about same, he fired them.
this explains a lot! take no prisoners! bargain with no-one! :)
-Original Message-
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 12:24 PM
To: Multiple recipients of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@LIFETOUCH.COcc:
M Subject: RE: Difference Between
DBMS/RDBMS
Sent by: root
Dennis,
I agree with everything you said - especially with regard to Oracle and how
they developed. Larry saw the benefit of not being tied to one vendor and
quickly changed his code-base to C to accomplish this. That, and the
adherance to supporting SQL was the biggest selling point - plus,
Well, I've found old benchmark from 01/1984 :-)
http://www.gondolin.org.uk/hchof/reviews/text/yc-atari800xl.html
JP
On Tuesday 25 June 2002 17:58, you wrote:
I've used Atari 800XL (still have it).
JP
On Tuesday 25 June 2002 17:13, you wrote:
Erm, programmed at college on something called
Mercadante, Thomas F wrote:
Oh you bunch of young whipper-snappers!
A long time ago in a place far-away, we started with simple File Systems.
Then came ISAM file systems.
These begate DBMS systems. Note there was no 'R' in original DBMS systems.
Some of these were simply an extention to
Between DBMS/RDBMS
3K of RAM available on the VIC-20. The other 5K were taken up by the
operating system. I had a terminal emulator program that
allowed me to
dial-up at 300 baud and run an IBM mainframe from home. Real
bleeding-edge
stuff at the time (LOL).
--
Please see the official
47 matches
Mail list logo
