Relational Database info needed. 
Author Message
 Relational Database info needed.

I am not that familiar with Databases outside of some of the ones for IBM PC's
but I have the following request:

I need any information that anyone might have on any Relational Databases
that:

  1) Run on all or most of the following formats: (i.e., have a version for each)
        DOS, UNIX, OS/2, WINDOWS

  2) Can interface with Pascal, or at least C

This information is important so if anyone has any knowledge about this,

Thanks in advance.

                                    - Mike
---
Mike Jones





Wed, 24 Nov 1993 12:21:39 GMT
 Relational Database info needed.


Quote:

>I need any information that anyone might have on any Relational Databases
>that:

>1) Run on all or most of the following formats: (i.e., have a version for each)
>        DOS, UNIX, OS/2, WINDOWS

Ha!  best you can hope for is "most".   If you want the "same" program to
run in all situations, dBase or Fox could work as DOS programs under OS/2
and Windows; or you could use dBFast undre Windows, or something else.

In a year or two you might see parallel products for all four from several
vendors, however.

Current solution?  Set up an SQL Server on an OS/2 Client/Server network
and have your choice of SQL Clients on the terminals.

Quote:
>  2) Can interface with Pascal, or at least C

FoxPro 2.0 -- WatCom C; Paradox -- Paradox Engine for C, for Pascal
Clipper 5.0 -- C.  Thos are the major produts.

--
Daniel A. Hartung           |  "What's the difference anyway, between being

Birch Grove Software        |  all been had."  -- John Wesley Harding
-----------FoxPro Programmer Looking For Work--------------



Fri, 26 Nov 1993 06:21:12 GMT
 Relational Database info needed.
Quote:


>>I need any information that anyone might have on any Relational Databases
>>that:

>>1) Run on all or most of the following formats: (i.e., have a version for each)
>>        DOS, UNIX, OS/2, WINDOWS

> Ha!  best you can hope for is "most".   If you want the "same" program to
> run in all situations, dBase or Fox could work as DOS programs under OS/2
> and Windows; or you could use dBFast undre Windows, or something else.

 Try Focus, it is a relational database that will run on a pc, mini, or a
mainframe.  The PC/FOCUS comes in DOS, OS/2, and LAN version.  I know they
have a UNIX version for mini computers but I am not sure if they have one
for a pc unix version.

                                     Guru



D.FROST1 - genie

Standard disclaimers - I thought no evil, I coded no evil, I ran no evil.



Sun, 28 Nov 1993 11:38:50 GMT
 Relational Database info needed.

Quote:

>> <stuff deleted about needing a relational database on ALL systems >
> Try Focus, it is a relational database that will run on a pc, mini, or a
>mainframe.  The PC/FOCUS comes in DOS, OS/2, and LAN version.  I know they
>have a UNIX version for mini computers but I am not sure if they have one
>for a pc unix version.
>                                     Guru

  :-) Guru, are you really one?  If so, how can you fall victim to
  the various marketing hype that calls FOCUS a relational database?

  (Donning asbestos suit in anticipation of all the FOCUS fans who
   are now pulling out their flamethrowers)

  Before you all start shooting flames my way, let me say that I spent
  15 years of my career (before switching to DB2, Ingres, Oracle and
  Teradata, "real" relational databases in my book) devoted to supporting
  and consulting with users of FOCUS and its ancestor RAMIS.  I am
  intimately familiar with both products, and its is quite clear that
  they are both fundamentally hierarchical/network databases, not
  relational databases.  That is not to say that either can't be used
  in a "psuedo-relational" way... but the products are principally
  designed to support hierarchical file structures with links between
  associated files (nee pointers).  

  This does not make them bad products... In fact, I think they are
  both extremely GOOD products... they have great application
  development environments and 4GLs... they are both very powerful
  and can be easy to use (at least until you start to move into
  the more esoteric areas)...

  However, neither product understands anything resembling a relational
  database query language such as QUEL or SQL... Their 4GL query
  languages are relatively unrigorous (albeit they both contain
  features that do much of what SQL does, in some cases more)...

  I do not intend this to degenerate into a discussion of whether
  FOCUS or RAMIS are "better" than DB2, et al... That argument
  could take years and Gigabits of bandwidth...  In many ways,
  both products ARE better than comparable relational databases...
  But to call them relational databases (despite what their
  respective marketing departments would want you to believe)
  is stretching definitions beyond where they should be...

  PS - I would also argue that dBase II/III/IV (and its lookalikes)
  is not a relational database either and I have so argued for
  many years... Again, that doesn't make it bad, simply not
  relational...

  Jon Rosen



Mon, 29 Nov 1993 03:46:31 GMT
 Relational Database info needed.
Someone writes>

Quote:
> Someone else writes>
> > I need a relational database for DOS, UNIX, OS/2 and Windows

> Ha-ha, not for a year.

(New news program; I don't know how to get it to auto-include
the original posting.)

dBASE IV is implementing a broad cross-platform strategy to satisfy just
this sort of requirement: One database across many environments.  We
are currently shipping on DOS, VMS, Macintosh and several flavors of
Unix (such as SCO Xenix imminent if not already).  Windows has been
announced for year's end (I believe).  These flavors of dBASE read
each other's application object code (.dbo) without recompilation.
I think product compatibility across platforms is going to be a
significant factor to everyone eventually--apparently Ashton-Tate
agrees with me and they are investing heavily now to get there first.

The second poster ("Someone else," above) made the comment that other
xBase vendors might have cross-platform products by next year.  To
which I answer, "Not if they're doing anything else right now,"
because this stuff is HARD.

/alastair/
--
|Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesman for Ashton-Tate,
|which does not monitor my outbursts here.  I reserve all rights to my
|opinions in terms of commercial endor{*filter*}ts.



Tue, 30 Nov 1993 02:21:29 GMT
 Relational Database info needed.

Quote:

>Someone writes>
>> Someone else writes>
>> > I need a relational database for DOS, UNIX, OS/2 and Windows

>> Ha-ha, not for a year.

>dBASE IV is implementing a broad cross-platform strategy to satisfy just
>this sort of requirement: One database across many environments.  ...
>I think product compatibility across platforms is going to be a
>significant factor to everyone eventually--apparently Ashton-Tate
>agrees with me and they are investing heavily now to get there first.
>[ ... Portability is HARD ... ]

First?  Ha-ha again.  Can you say "Oracle?"  (Try "Sybase," or "Ingres,"
to name two others?)  All these companies have long since committed to a
multi-platform marketing strategy.  Given their established advances
in performance, reliability and programmability, AT is jumping into one
hot fire taking on these companies.  Now, O & I servers are not at
their best on DOS.  Sybase has IMO rightly not seen fit to build a DOS
server; that's OK since DOS never was intended to be a server environment.
All these companies have client solutions for DOS, and connect to
servers running from OS/2 386's through minis to mainframe-class
machines.

AT may go from being {*filter*}ied to being bowed if it enters the server DBMS
market.  IMNSHO, it is several years behind in key technologies like
OLTP, performance, and portability (in the absence of product
evidence to the contrary.)  You're right, portability IS hard.  I doubt
that AT can create a product competitive enough to keep dBase users from
moving to an established server vendor when their needs reach that scale.

If dBase 4.0 took so long to get right, how long will we have to wait for,
or how many bugs will there be in your first version of a server that offers
what Sybase, for one, has now and has had for years?  Moreover, users
won't have to abandom their dBase investment when moving to a server
such as ours; they can just get our gateway to connect to dBase and
make the transition at their convenience.
-TW
---
Sybase, Inc. / 6475 Christie Ave. / Emeryville, CA / 94608        415-596-3500


Dis claim er dat claim, what's da difference?  I'm da one doin da talkin' hea.



Thu, 02 Dec 1993 05:58:58 GMT
 Relational Database info needed.

Quote:


> ... description of FOCUS deleted ...

I heard that in the mainframe world, some people use FOCUS as a front end
for DBMS like DB2. What is the ticket?

Quote:

>  PS - I would also argue that dBase II/III/IV (and its lookalikes)
>  is not a relational database either and I have so argued for
>  many years... Again, that doesn't make it bad, simply not
>  relational...

Right on! It really irritates me when people saying that dBase ? is a
relational database system - they don't even do auto indexing for you!

Quote:
>  Jon Rosen

--
Peter Yeung     Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
                Phone: (416) 542-6300    Fax: (416) 858-2233


Sun, 05 Dec 1993 23:22:25 GMT
 Relational Database info needed.

Quote:

>dBASE IV is implementing a broad cross-platform strategy to satisfy just
>this sort of requirement: One database across many environments.  We
>are currently shipping on DOS, VMS, Macintosh and several flavors of
>Unix (such as SCO Xenix imminent if not already).  Windows has been
>announced for year's end (I believe).  These flavors of dBASE read
>each other's application object code (.dbo) without recompilation.
>I think product compatibility across platforms is going to be a
>significant factor to everyone eventually--apparently Ashton-Tate
>agrees with me and they are investing heavily now to get there first.

"Get there first"???   I think you're a tad too late.

Informix-4GL has been pcode platform-compatible (between dozens of
UNIX environments and DOS) for over two years.  I suspect others
of our competitors may have as well.

Quote:
>The second poster ("Someone else," above) made the comment that other
>xBase vendors might have cross-platform products by next year.  To
>which I answer, "Not if they're doing anything else right now,"
>because this stuff is HARD.

Not if portability is designed into the language in the first place...

Quote:
>/alastair/

--

"To be labeled as a jazz singer is limiting.  I like to think of myself
as one who has simply been infused with a lot of music."
                                                       - Bobby McFerrin



Wed, 08 Dec 1993 10:36:40 GMT
 Relational Database info needed.

Quote:

}}Someone writes}
}}} Ha-ha, not for a year.
}}this sort of requirement: One database across many environments.  ...
}}I think product compatibility across platforms is going to be a
}}significant factor to everyone eventually--apparently Ashton-Tate
}First?  Ha-ha again.  Can you say "Oracle?"  (Try "Sybase," or "Ingres,"
}to name two others?)  All these companies have long since committed to a
}multi-platform marketing strategy.  

I was  under the  impression that  Sybase runs on MS-DOS LANs but
not on single PCs while the  recent PC Magazine's database  issue
indicates that  Ingres' MS-DOS LAN does not  even support locking
on MS-DOS  LANs.  (I have not  used these products so someone can
correct me  if I  am  mistaken.)  If you want it to run on single
PCs, MS-DOS LANs as well as  OS/2, UNIX, VAX/VMS,  etc. then  the
choices are really quite limited and if your requirements include
referential integrity then, to my knowledge,  there  is   no such
portable package.




Wed, 08 Dec 1993 23:18:54 GMT
 Relational Database info needed.

[ Someone wants a relational database for ]

Quote:

>>>        DOS, UNIX, OS/2, WINDOWS

> Try Focus, it is a relational database that will run on a pc, mini, or a
>mainframe.  The PC/FOCUS comes in DOS, OS/2, and LAN version.  I know they
>have a UNIX version for mini computers but I am not sure if they have one
>for a pc unix version.

Hey!  FOCUS is ***NOT*** a relational database, it's hierarchical.  The
PC, UNIX, and mainframe versions are ***NOT*** 100% compatible (for eg, the
graphic characters that one can embed in screens to do color stuff on the
PC do quite different things on the Sun... as one might well expect).

I know from personal experience that Informix products run on DOS and UNIX,
and that they advertise an OS/2 product.  Don't know about Windows.  I imagine
that both Oracle and Ingres (and maybe Sybase?) have similar coverage.
The point is that these are all real, relational systems that are based on
SQL standards (more or less) and represent some kind of mainstream.

From my experience with FOCUS, on the other hand, this product was designed
to solve a problem on the mainframe and subsequently ported to PC and UNIX
machines.  It certainly wouldn't be my first choice of package in any
situation not involving prior FOCUS use and mainframes, and it ISN'T RELATIONAL.

Hope this helps.

Chris Hermansen                         Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants
Voice: 1 604 733 0731                   302 - 958 West 8th Avenue
FAX:   1 604 733 0634                   Vancouver B.C. CANADA

C'est ma facon de parler.



Sat, 11 Dec 1993 03:34:03 GMT
 Relational Database info needed.

Quote:


>[ Someone wants a relational database for ]
>> Try Focus, it is a relational database that will run on a pc, mini, or a
>>mainframe.  The PC/FOCUS comes in DOS, OS/2, and LAN version.  I know they
>>have a UNIX version for mini computers but I am not sure if they have one
>>for a pc unix version.

>Hey!  FOCUS is ***NOT*** a relational database, it's hierarchical.  The

 Here here!  I mentioned this in a previous post.  Having worked with FOCUS
 and its forefather RAMIS, I can attest to the correctness of Chris's view.
 I spent almost 15 years working with both products on mainframes and their
 early editions on PCs.  They are hierarchical databases with some very
 nice ways of linking various database files, and in fact, can be made to
 look reasonably psuedo-relational if you are careful.  But they are not
 relational databases.  Their query languages and report writers are VERY
 powerful (more so than SQL in a number of ways) but they are not based
 on any mathematical foundation like a relational database access language
 should be (no flames to me regarding SQL, I know it has its problems too).

 By the way, what FOCUS and RAMIS can both do is use their report writers
 to link to REAL relational databases such as DB2, OS/2 EE, Oracle, etc.
 Since both products also have very powerful 4GLs and application development
 tools, this is sometimes a good thing to consider (marrying a real RDBMS
 with a front-end 4GL-based product like FOCUS).  

 Jon Rosen



Sun, 12 Dec 1993 12:03:45 GMT
 Relational Database info needed.
Quote:



>}}Someone writes}
>}}} Ha-ha, not for a year.
>}}this sort of requirement: One database across many environments.  ...
>}}I think product compatibility across platforms is going to be a
>}}significant factor to everyone eventually--apparently Ashton-Tate
>}First?  Ha-ha again.  Can you say "Oracle?"  (Try "Sybase," or "Ingres,"
>}to name two others?)  All these companies have long since committed to a
>}multi-platform marketing strategy.  

>I was  under the  impression that  Sybase runs on MS-DOS LANs but
>not on single PCs while the  recent PC Magazine's database  issue
>indicates that  Ingres' MS-DOS LAN does not  even support locking

                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quote:
>on MS-DOS  LANs.  (I have not  used these products so someone can
>correct me  if I  am  mistaken.)  If you want it to run on single
>PCs, MS-DOS LANs as well as  OS/2, UNIX, VAX/VMS,  etc. then  the
>choices are really quite limited and if your requirements include
>referential integrity then, to my knowledge,  there  is   no such
>portable package.



I'd like make clear what Ingres does and doesn't do, since the above
statement is at best misleading. Ingres has essentially two product
families for MS-DOS; Release 5, which offers a stand-alone database,
and Release 6, which proves a client only front end to a server
machine via Ingres/Net. Release 5 "knows" that it is running on a single
processor, has one thread of control, and therefore doesn't need to use
locks on the data. If you have, however, a netware or novell server,
it would be possible to have several PCs attempt to share a single ingres
installation - this would be doomed to failure due to the absence of
locking. Additionally, the cacheing done by most PC lan servers would
compromise data integrity, as when Ingres writes a page to a file it
assumes it has made its way to disk. It is possible to share a single copy
of Ingres (R5 or R6) executables on a PC lan, but the (R5) data must be stored
on a local disk. Tech support should be able to tell you how to set this up.
In Release 6, this is not an issue, since the server on the target host,
whether OS/2, Unix or VMS handles all the locking issues. Comms protocols
supported include netbios, SPX/IPX, Decnet (PCSA), and various flavours of
TCP. Other PC lan protocols are in the pipeline. In short then, the
original statement is true for the Ingres Release 5 standalone database,
but irrelevant and thus misleading for Release 6.

Tony.
Disclaimer: none of the above is an official statement by Ask Computer
Systems Inc., Ingres Division, but to the best of my knowledge it's all
true :-)



Tue, 14 Dec 1993 06:11:44 GMT
 Relational Database info needed.

Quote:


>>Someone writes>
>>> Someone else writes>
>>> > I need a relational database for DOS, UNIX, OS/2 and Windows

>>> Ha-ha, not for a year.

Micro Database Systems (MDBS) has KMan (currently version 2.61, version 3
in a month or so) and MDBS IV available under DOS, UNIX, and OS/2.  Their
Object/1 product has a data engine derived from KMan and runs under Windows
(they have a strategic partnership with Microsoft, and MS uses and recommends
Object/1).  Though you can probably use Object Vision or something similar to
interface to any reasonable DBMS.  MDBS is in Purdue, their phone number is
800-344-5832.  Standard disclaimer: I'm just a satisfied MDBS customer.
If anyone wants more specifics, send me mail.

- Tony



Wed, 29 Dec 1993 04:00:11 GMT
 
 [ 13 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Relational database info needed

2. Need info on UNIX relational databases

3. NEED INFO: Temporal Versioning in Relational Databases

4. Need info about non relational database..

5. info needed on relational databases and 4GL Languages

6. Need info on UNIX relational databases

7. NEED: Info on Java to Relational Mapping Tools

8. eed info on UNIX relational databases

9. relational databases vs. not-so relational databases

10. Relational Databases vs. NF2 or Nested Relational Databases

11. relational databases vs. not-so relational databases


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software