Dave, Thanks for the Interesting Conversation/Argument.
I did learn something from the Folks here who were willing to share information while I was researching UV. Thanks to ALL. Wish the Next Forum and UV all the Best. Thanks, Joe Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David T. Meeks > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:34 PM > To: U2 Users Discussion List > Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing > > I doubt you'd find much disagreement on that point Joe... > Unfortunately, I think you are missing the real point... > > Ultimately, what's "best" for a company need varies from company > to company, and from situation to situation. > > For many people, being on 'top of technology' is not a benefit. In > fact, it can often introduce major downsides (instability, lack of > funding for more pertinent issues, etc..). > > For many companies, and many situations, having a high-performance > data management engine that is geared for application development is > best for the company. Not having to have a large staff of Oracle DBAs > on hand to manage the environment is often the best solution. > > Understanding the role of various technologies is the beginning of > understanding the value in those technologies. For example, you > use J2EE as an example. J2EE is a remarkable technology. However, > it is absolutely the WRONG choice in any number of situations. > > As you should be able to see from the wealth of very intelligent > individuals > that populate this board, your own companies usage, and millions of > other people using the U2 technologies, it has a great deal of value when > used correctly and for the purposes it was intended. > > It's why it makes perfect sense for a Fortune 100 company to use > the U2 products as the foundation of their applications to service > various aspects of their business, and why it makes perfect sense for > those same companies to use Oracle/DB2 as the foundation of their > terabyte-size enterprise DBMS systems. Both decisions are correct, > and neither would be the correct choice if switched. > > It's why it makes perfect sense for the thousands of mid-size companies > to use U2 products, again, as the embedded DB engine to run their > business applications. > > Gotta compare apples-to-apples, oranges-to-oranges... > > Dave > > > At 12:26 PM 3/29/2004 -0500, you wrote: > > > > Why not ask the alternate question of why the SQL Server can't handle > >the > backend? > > > >Simple Reason... "Management Politics". > > > > > No one is saying UV is a truly 'enterprise' class DB. > > > >WE AGREE 100% NOW! I was just trying to say the above. > > > >Going MainStream and staying with BIG THREE is Better for the > >future of the Company's Needs. BIG THREE has A LOT OF INVESTMENT > >in R&D and they are constantly on TOP OF TECHNOLOGY!. > > > >E.G. Is ASP.NET similar to Java J2EE? YES... as a matter of fact > >ASP.NET Copied a lot of the CORE Techniques... but why is ASP.NET > >just a little more better than Java J2EE? > >CAUSE: > >MS Had more money to PUMP into R&D and were able to REFINE some of > >the Techniques...e.g. Core improvement in RUNTIME ENVIROMENT AND > >COMPILATION. > > > >I know you are one of the GURU's OF UV System, it nice to hear some > >agreement on this argument. > > ======================================================================== > David T. Meeks || "All my life I'm taken by surprise > Architect, Technology Office || I'm someone's waste of time > Ascential Software || Now I walk a balanced line > [EMAIL PROTECTED] || and step into tomorrow" - IQ > ======================================================================== > -- > u2-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
