Sybase NNTP forums - End Of Life (EOL)

The NNTP forums from Sybase - forums.sybase.com - are now closed.

All new questions should be directed to the appropriate forum at the SAP Community Network (SCN).

Individual products have links to the respective forums on SCN, or you can go to SCN and search for your product in the search box (upper right corner) to find your specific developer center.

The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASE and IQ

32 posts in Product Futures Discussion Last posting was on 2008-08-30 14:00:49.0Z
Mich Talebzadeh Posted on 2008-08-15 11:03:10.0Z
Reply-To: "Mich Talebzadeh" <mich@peridale.co.uk>
From: "Mich Talebzadeh" <mich@peridale.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Subject: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASE and IQ
Lines: 100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub>
Date: 15 Aug 2008 04:03:10 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1218798190 10.22.241.152 (15 Aug 2008 04:03:10 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 15 Aug 2008 04:03:10 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1986
Article PK: 97588

There is a convincing argument these days to classify Oracle's approach to
handling both OLTP and OLAP type load as fundamentally flawed.



The argument is not so much as if Relational database management systems
like Oracle "should be considered legacy technology" as they are more than a
quarter of century old but more to do with the philosophy and the design
approach that they were created for.



Twenty five years ago and as far back as ten years ago databases were far
smaller of order of few Gigabytes size. They were dealing with smaller
community of users with an even size of adding and reading data. This was
the era of transactional base databases in which the user say a trader was
only interested in his/her own portfolio. Adding few trades and reading them
with some aggregates was fine and within the capability of the old optimiser
relying purely on nested-loop join etc. At that time most RDBMS engines
including Sybase and others did not even bother implementing sort-merge
joins never mind the hash-joins.



Things have moved on since then. Today's systems and users deal far greater
with non transactional (read) activity than with transactional
(write/update) activity. An average trader today is not only interested in

his/her portfolio but also interested in other portfolios and analytics
requiring sifting through millions of line of records.



If I were to design a new database engine today I would gear it towards OLAP
type rather than OLTP type. I will probably make the deign *column based* as
opposed to row based. A column-oriented system is a database management
system which stores its content by column rather than by row. This has
advantages for read-mostly databases such as data warehouses plus the
convenience of data compression much like Sybase IQ. My argument would be
that at today's read hungry world an average user will read far more than
he/she writes.



Going back to the approach of Oracle, it is becoming increasingly clear than
*one size/one philosophy* does not fit all. When it comes to OLTP
application we know well that Oracle is slower compared to Sybase or

Microsoft SQL Server for that matter. On the other hand its transactional
and concurrency approach suits better for large volume of data. However,
what it cannot do (although it tries very hard) is to adapt the Relational
model that Oracle (much like Sybase and Microsoft SQL server) is based on to
handle what a column based system inherently does much better!



Does that mean that Oracle and for that matter Sybase and Microsoft SQL
Server are legacy systems? I don't think so. All it means is that there is a
limit that you can take the relational model so far. The RDBMSs are
perfectly OK for certain things. However, the column based systems are good
for heavy read, low volume transactional activity.



So what is the solution in a business world that is growing increasingly
distributed and has to deal with the increased use of heterogeneous systems
and proprietary databases across different levels of business? I genuinely
think that we need to deploy tools for the purpose and relying on one engine
philosophy (say RDBMS) solution is no longer viable. The solution is not to
bolt a Ferrari and a people carrier together and create an all purpose
vehicle but more to use a Ferrari and a people carrier where appropriate.
Today's technology perfectly allow us to use a good RDBMS system like Sybase
ASE for transactional activity with a column based system like Sybase IQ.
For that matter you can use Oracle as an RDBMS and bolt it to IQ, that is if
you have to.







Mich Talebzadeh



Sybase ASE 15 Gold Medalist Award 2008



http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=mich+talebzadeh+sybase+oracle&meta=



http://www.sybase.com/linux


Eugene Korolkov Posted on 2008-08-18 21:59:03.0Z
Message-ID: <48A9EF94.5060407@davidsohn.com>
From: Eugene Korolkov <ekorolkov@davidsohn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
To: Mich Talebzadeh <mich@peridale.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASE and IQ
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub>
In-Reply-To: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030809040006080001010904"
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 18 Aug 2008 14:59:03 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219096743 10.22.241.152 (18 Aug 2008 14:59:03 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 18 Aug 2008 14:59:03 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 283
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1988
Article PK: 97591

Mich,

What about OLTP/OLAP mixture (the common reality) or real-time OLAP/DWH
which is becoming most popular tendency  today (and actually are just common sense) ?
Are you still want to use two different expensive database platform for that ?
Loading, extracting, transforming, reloading, extracting with much longer time period
(forget about real time at all!) than "all in one" approach?    

Regards,
Eugene


Mich Talebzadeh wrote:

There is a convincing argument these days to classify Oracle's approach to handling both OLTP and OLAP type load as fundamentally flawed.



The argument is not so much as if Relational database management systems like Oracle "should be considered legacy technology" as they are more than a quarter of century old but more to do with the philosophy and the design approach that they were created for.



Twenty five years ago and as far back as ten years ago databases were far smaller of order of few Gigabytes size. They were dealing with smaller community of users with an even size of adding and reading data. This was the era of transactional base databases in which the user say a trader was only interested in his/her own portfolio. Adding few trades and reading them with some aggregates was fine and within the capability of the old optimiser relying purely on nested-loop join etc. At that time most RDBMS engines including Sybase and others did not even bother implementing sort-merge joins never mind the hash-joins.



Things have moved on since then. Today's systems and users deal far greater with non transactional (read) activity than with transactional (write/update) activity. An average trader today is not only interested in

his/her portfolio but also interested in other portfolios and analytics requiring sifting through millions of line of records.



If I were to design a new database engine today I would gear it towards OLAP type rather than OLTP type. I will probably make the deign *column based* as opposed to row based. A column-oriented system is a database management system which stores its content by column rather than by row. This has advantages for read-mostly databases such as data warehouses plus the convenience of data compression much like Sybase IQ. My argument would be that at today's read hungry world an average user will read far more than he/she writes.



Going back to the approach of Oracle, it is becoming increasingly clear than *one size/one philosophy* does not fit all. When it comes to OLTP application we know well that Oracle is slower compared to Sybase or

Microsoft SQL Server for that matter. On the other hand its transactional and concurrency approach suits better for large volume of data. However, what it cannot do (although it tries very hard) is to adapt the Relational model that Oracle (much like Sybase and Microsoft SQL server) is based on to handle what a column based system inherently does much better!



Does that mean that Oracle and for that matter Sybase and Microsoft SQL Server are legacy systems? I don't think so. All it means is that there is a limit that you can take the relational model so far. The RDBMSs are perfectly OK for certain things. However, the column based systems are good for heavy read, low volume transactional activity.



So what is the solution in a business world that is growing increasingly distributed and has to deal with the increased use of heterogeneous systems and proprietary databases across different levels of business? I genuinely think that we need to deploy tools for the purpose and relying on one engine philosophy (say RDBMS) solution is no longer viable. The solution is not to bolt a Ferrari and a people carrier together and create an all purpose vehicle but more to use a Ferrari and a people carrier where appropriate. Today's technology perfectly allow us to use a good RDBMS system like Sybase ASE for transactional activity with a column based system like Sybase IQ. For that matter you can use Oracle as an RDBMS and bolt it to IQ, that is if you have to.







Mich Talebzadeh



Sybase ASE 15 Gold Medalist Award 2008



http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=mich+talebzadeh+sybase+oracle&meta=



http://www.sybase.com/linux







Jeff Tallman Posted on 2008-08-20 02:44:00.0Z
From: Jeff Tallman <jeff.tallman@sybase.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASE and IQ
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub>
In-Reply-To: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 19 Aug 2008 19:44:00 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219200240 10.22.241.152 (19 Aug 2008 19:44:00 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 19 Aug 2008 19:44:00 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 131
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1989
Article PK: 97592

Just kidding Mich - but aren't you the same Mich that posted a request
in another news forum less than a month ago asking when Sybase was going
to merge ASE & IQ???

But seriously to answer Eugene's point, IQ is aimed at the OLAP/DWH
market and not at the OLTP/OLAP market... Note that OLAP!=OLTP - it has
to do with the latency of the data (and query complexity) and NOT the
number of writers... Using microbatch feeds into IQ, you can sustain
nearly the same rate as 1000 users inserting 1 row each into an OLTP
system - depending of course on the complexity of your IQ indexing
scheme. Future enhancements to IQ will move this even more to where it
*might* start blurring the lines a little with respect to OLTP inserts
(but not the point query type responses).

However, being a mathematician - I kinda have to take exception at those
(and Nickolas in Germany is equally guilty with his MVCC qualification
for RDBMS) of making false assumptions on what is a RDBMS and what
isn't. A relational DBMS is any which is based on relational algebra of
sets (selections) and projections with grounding on set theory (ala the
joins being a key component of defining relations) - storage format
(row/column) and/or concurrency controls (whether an in-memory hash
table for locks or an on disk ITL) - all irrelevant. ASA, IQ and ASE
are all RDBMS's....just aimed (as you pointed out) at optimizing for
their environment.

Mich Talebzadeh wrote:
> There is a convincing argument these days to classify Oracle's approach
> to handling both OLTP and OLAP type load as fundamentally flawed.
>
>
>
> The argument is not so much as if Relational database management systems
> like Oracle "should be considered legacy technology" as they are more
> than a quarter of century old but more to do with the philosophy and the
> design approach that they were created for.
>
>
>
> Twenty five years ago and as far back as ten years ago databases were
> far smaller of order of few Gigabytes size. They were dealing with
> smaller community of users with an even size of adding and reading data.
> This was the era of transactional base databases in which the user say a
> trader was only interested in his/her own portfolio. Adding few trades
> and reading them with some aggregates was fine and within the capability
> of the old optimiser relying purely on nested-loop join etc. At that
> time most RDBMS engines including Sybase and others did not even bother
> implementing sort-merge joins never mind the hash-joins.
>
>
>
> Things have moved on since then. Today's systems and users deal far
> greater with non transactional (read) activity than with transactional
> (write/update) activity. An average trader today is not only interested in
>
> his/her portfolio but also interested in other portfolios and analytics
> requiring sifting through millions of line of records.
>
>
>
> If I were to design a new database engine today I would gear it towards
> OLAP type rather than OLTP type. I will probably make the deign *column
> based* as opposed to row based. A column-oriented system is a database
> management system which stores its content by column rather than by row.
> This has advantages for read-mostly databases such as data warehouses
> plus the convenience of data compression much like Sybase IQ. My
> argument would be that at today's read hungry world an average user will
> read far more than he/she writes.
>
>
>
> Going back to the approach of Oracle, it is becoming increasingly clear
> than *one size/one philosophy* does not fit all. When it comes to OLTP
> application we know well that Oracle is slower compared to Sybase or
>
> Microsoft SQL Server for that matter. On the other hand its
> transactional and concurrency approach suits better for large volume of
> data. However, what it cannot do (although it tries very hard) is to
> adapt the Relational model that Oracle (much like Sybase and Microsoft
> SQL server) is based on to handle what a column based system inherently
> does much better!
>
>
>
> Does that mean that Oracle and for that matter Sybase and Microsoft SQL
> Server are legacy systems? I don't think so. All it means is that there
> is a limit that you can take the relational model so far. The RDBMSs are
> perfectly OK for certain things. However, the column based systems are
> good for heavy read, low volume transactional activity.
>
>
>
> So what is the solution in a business world that is growing increasingly
> distributed and has to deal with the increased use of heterogeneous
> systems and proprietary databases across different levels of business? I
> genuinely think that we need to deploy tools for the purpose and relying
> on one engine philosophy (say RDBMS) solution is no longer viable. The
> solution is not to bolt a Ferrari and a people carrier together and
> create an all purpose vehicle but more to use a Ferrari and a people
> carrier where appropriate. Today's technology perfectly allow us to use
> a good RDBMS system like Sybase ASE for transactional activity with a
> column based system like Sybase IQ. For that matter you can use Oracle
> as an RDBMS and bolt it to IQ, that is if you have to.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mich Talebzadeh
>
>
>
> Sybase ASE 15 Gold Medalist Award 2008
>
>
>
> http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=mich+talebzadeh+sybase+oracle&meta=
>
>
>
> http://www.sybase.com/linux
>
>
>
>
>


Mich Talebzadeh Posted on 2008-08-21 17:10:35.0Z
Reply-To: "Mich Talebzadeh" <mich@peridale.co.uk>
From: "Mich Talebzadeh" <mich@peridale.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub>
In-Reply-To: <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub>
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASE and IQ
Lines: 194
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48ada18b@forums-1-dub>
Date: 21 Aug 2008 10:10:35 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219338635 10.22.241.152 (21 Aug 2008 10:10:35 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 21 Aug 2008 10:10:35 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1990
Article PK: 97590

Yes indeed Jeff, ASE, Oracle, IQ are all manifastations of relational model.
I call Sybase ASE or Oracle a Row Based Storage Implementation (RBSI) of
Relational Model (RM) and Sybase IQ a Column Based Storage Implementation
(CBSI) of RM.



Let me for focus on the back-end stuff, I believe a vendor like Sybase and I
am sure Oracle as well has both technologies for both RBSI and CBSI in hand.
To make RBSI and CBSI implementations work seamlessly is a challenge. Every
vendor recognises the need to create an RBSI and CBSI solution.



Clearly there is a need for a physical implementation that focuses on better
retrieval of data for Read Intensive activities. To believe that one RBSI
model of vendor has cracked it much better than the other ones is simply
naive and at best a marketing ploy. That is where I was hitting at Oracle!



I would envisage a scenario in the future where a vendor like Sybase will
retain ASE but will incorporate column based storage implementation into it.
That is probably the best way of taking this forward. Imagine one has the
ability to create a table with row or columned based storage

option:



CREATE TABLE STORAGE <ROW | COLUMN>



With that in mind the challenge for the designers would be how to make the
RBSI Execution Engine work in tandem with the CBSI Execution engine when
joining a row based storage table with a column based storage table! I can
see tremendous potential with partitioned tables as well. You could create
the most active partition with row storage and the other partitions with
column storage and thus compressed, resulting in considerable saving of
space. I do not know if anyone is much familiar with the Trans-Relational
model



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransRelational_model



This is an attempt to go down the CBSI route, but with such performance
advantages that the RBSI becomes redundant. Further, it would claim to be
able to implement physically much closer to the original logical relational
model.

"Jeff Tallman" <jeff.tallman@sybase.com> wrote in message
news:48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub...
>
> Just kidding Mich - but aren't you the same Mich that posted a request in
> another news forum less than a month ago asking when Sybase was going to
> merge ASE & IQ???
>
> But seriously to answer Eugene's point, IQ is aimed at the OLAP/DWH market
> and not at the OLTP/OLAP market... Note that OLAP!=OLTP - it has to do
> with the latency of the data (and query complexity) and NOT the number of
> writers... Using microbatch feeds into IQ, you can sustain nearly the
> same rate as 1000 users inserting 1 row each into an OLTP system -
> depending of course on the complexity of your IQ indexing scheme. Future
> enhancements to IQ will move this even more to where it *might* start
> blurring the lines a little with respect to OLTP inserts (but not the
> point query type responses).
>
> However, being a mathematician - I kinda have to take exception at those
> (and Nickolas in Germany is equally guilty with his MVCC qualification for
> RDBMS) of making false assumptions on what is a RDBMS and what isn't. A
> relational DBMS is any which is based on relational algebra of sets
> (selections) and projections with grounding on set theory (ala the joins
> being a key component of defining relations) - storage format (row/column)
> and/or concurrency controls (whether an in-memory hash table for locks or
> an on disk ITL) - all irrelevant. ASA, IQ and ASE are all RDBMS's....just
> aimed (as you pointed out) at optimizing for their environment.
>
>
>
>
> Mich Talebzadeh wrote:
>> There is a convincing argument these days to classify Oracle's approach
>> to handling both OLTP and OLAP type load as fundamentally flawed.
>>
>>
>>
>> The argument is not so much as if Relational database management systems
>> like Oracle "should be considered legacy technology" as they are more
>> than a quarter of century old but more to do with the philosophy and the
>> design approach that they were created for.
>>
>>
>>
>> Twenty five years ago and as far back as ten years ago databases were far
>> smaller of order of few Gigabytes size. They were dealing with smaller
>> community of users with an even size of adding and reading data. This was
>> the era of transactional base databases in which the user say a trader
>> was only interested in his/her own portfolio. Adding few trades and
>> reading them with some aggregates was fine and within the capability of
>> the old optimiser relying purely on nested-loop join etc. At that time
>> most RDBMS engines including Sybase and others did not even bother
>> implementing sort-merge joins never mind the hash-joins.
>>
>>
>>
>> Things have moved on since then. Today's systems and users deal far
>> greater with non transactional (read) activity than with transactional
>> (write/update) activity. An average trader today is not only interested
>> in
>>
>> his/her portfolio but also interested in other portfolios and analytics
>> requiring sifting through millions of line of records.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I were to design a new database engine today I would gear it towards
>> OLAP type rather than OLTP type. I will probably make the deign *column
>> based* as opposed to row based. A column-oriented system is a database
>> management system which stores its content by column rather than by row.
>> This has advantages for read-mostly databases such as data warehouses
>> plus the convenience of data compression much like Sybase IQ. My argument
>> would be that at today's read hungry world an average user will read far
>> more than he/she writes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Going back to the approach of Oracle, it is becoming increasingly clear
>> than *one size/one philosophy* does not fit all. When it comes to OLTP
>> application we know well that Oracle is slower compared to Sybase or
>>
>> Microsoft SQL Server for that matter. On the other hand its transactional
>> and concurrency approach suits better for large volume of data. However,
>> what it cannot do (although it tries very hard) is to adapt the
>> Relational model that Oracle (much like Sybase and Microsoft SQL server)
>> is based on to handle what a column based system inherently does much
>> better!
>>
>>
>>
>> Does that mean that Oracle and for that matter Sybase and Microsoft SQL
>> Server are legacy systems? I don't think so. All it means is that there
>> is a limit that you can take the relational model so far. The RDBMSs are
>> perfectly OK for certain things. However, the column based systems are
>> good for heavy read, low volume transactional activity.
>>
>>
>>
>> So what is the solution in a business world that is growing increasingly
>> distributed and has to deal with the increased use of heterogeneous
>> systems and proprietary databases across different levels of business? I
>> genuinely think that we need to deploy tools for the purpose and relying
>> on one engine philosophy (say RDBMS) solution is no longer viable. The
>> solution is not to bolt a Ferrari and a people carrier together and
>> create an all purpose vehicle but more to use a Ferrari and a people
>> carrier where appropriate. Today's technology perfectly allow us to use a
>> good RDBMS system like Sybase ASE for transactional activity with a
>> column based system like Sybase IQ. For that matter you can use Oracle as
>> an RDBMS and bolt it to IQ, that is if you have to.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mich Talebzadeh
>>
>>
>>
>> Sybase ASE 15 Gold Medalist Award 2008
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=mich+talebzadeh+sybase+oracle&meta=
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.sybase.com/linux
>>
>>
>>
>>


Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase] Posted on 2008-08-24 22:01:59.0Z
From: "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]" <jason@froebe.net>
Organization: TeamSybase
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASE and IQ
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub>
In-Reply-To: <48ada18b@forums-1-dub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 24 Aug 2008 15:01:59 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219615319 10.22.241.152 (24 Aug 2008 15:01:59 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 24 Aug 2008 15:01:59 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 32
X-Authenticated-User: TeamSybase
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1991
Article PK: 97593

Hi Mich,

Trying to get to the meat of the request. Essentially your requesting
that Sybase merge ASE and IQ into a single product in order to compete
with Oracle.

A little bit of historical information for those people that may not
remember: IQ used to contain an embedded ASE DBMS, in the same manner
as IQ today contains an embedded SQL Anywhere DBMS.

IIRC, remembering back a few years, the move to put IQ on top of SQL
Anywhere was based on SQL Anywhere

1) being infinitely more embeddable than ASE due to its smaller code
and cleaner design. ASE was never meant to be embedded and was going
under major changes (remember ASE 11.5 -> 11.9.2) and it was going to
become even further less embeddable.
2) SQL Anywhere was orders of magnitude faster for being the underlying
storage component than ASE.

Again, this is my memory of what the reasoning was.

I can see the appeal of merging the IQ data warehouse *features* into
ASE but it isn't really practical as it would probably require a
complete rewrite of ASE. As the Powerbuilder folk can attest to,
rewrites are often painful to endure.

--
Jason L. Froebe
TeamSybase
http://www.froebe.net/blog
MyDatabases Free Magazine http://froebe.net/blog/mydatabases-magazine/


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-25 15:02:40.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEand IQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 25 Aug 2008 08:02:40 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219676560 10.22.241.152 (25 Aug 2008 08:02:40 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 25 Aug 2008 08:02:40 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 25
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1994
Article PK: 97596


> On 2008-08-25 08:01:59 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
> <jason@froebe.net> said:
>
> IIRC, remembering back a few years, the move to put IQ on top of SQL
> Anywhere was based on SQL Anywhere
>
> 1) being infinitely more embeddable than ASE due to its smaller code
> and cleaner design. ASE was never meant to be embedded and was going
> under major changes (remember ASE 11.5 -> 11.9.2) and it was going to
> become even further less embeddable.

I do not get it. Now I am not saying that ASE is "more" embeddable
than ASE, but we have NO problems whatsoever embedding ASE into an app,
and I understand hundreds (thousands ?) of BSA Partners are doing the
same thing under a BSA?OEM Schedule. Mind you that is 12.5.4 not
15.0.x; and yes, I would like to strip great slabs of code off the
beast, but that is a separate point.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Jason L. Froebe Posted on 2008-08-25 15:26:32.0Z
From: "Jason L. Froebe" <jason@froebe.net>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Organization: TeamSybase[67.153.8.235]
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub>
X-Newsreader: AspNNTP 1.50 (JodoHost)
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEand IQ
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub>
Date: 25 Aug 2008 08:26:32 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219677992 10.22.241.152 (25 Aug 2008 08:26:32 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 25 Aug 2008 08:26:32 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 21
X-Authenticated-User: TeamSybase
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1995
Article PK: 97595

On 25 Aug 2008 08:02:40 -0700,
in sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion

>I do not get it. Now I am not saying that ASE is "more" embeddable
>than ASE, but we have NO problems whatsoever embedding ASE into an app,
>and I understand hundreds (thousands ?) of BSA Partners are doing the
>same thing under a BSA?OEM Schedule. Mind you that is 12.5.4 not
>15.0.x; and yes, I would like to strip great slabs of code off the
>beast, but that is a separate point.
>--
>Cheers
>Derek

I seriously doubt you've embedded ASE into an application as I doubt you have
access to the source code of ASE. Perhaps you misunderstand the definition of
'embedded'.

--
Jason L. Froebe
TeamSybase
http://www.froebe.net/blog
MyDatabases Free Magazine http://froebe.net/blog/mydatabases-magazine/


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-25 23:23:36.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEand IQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 25 Aug 2008 16:23:36 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219706616 10.22.241.152 (25 Aug 2008 16:23:36 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 25 Aug 2008 16:23:36 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 40
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1996
Article PK: 97598


> On 2008-08-26 01:26:32 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe" <jason@froebe.net> said:
>
>
> I seriously doubt you've embedded ASE into an application as I doubt you have
> access to the source code of ASE. Perhaps you misunderstand the definition of
> 'embedded'.

I do not have access to ASE source, never said I did. As stated, we
have a BSA Partner Master Agreement with a OEM Schedule, as do hundreds
of other Partners, which allows us to embed ASE into our apps. The app
is sold and licensed; ASE is not sold/licensed; we pay Sybase a Royalty
for each sale. All done without ASE source code. The cust cannot use
ASE outside the app which it is bundled in. 'Embed' is the term used
in the legal document, and it means the same thing in the industry.
The product is unchanged, and embedded in its entirety into another
product.

If one binds a product into an app, which means the product was written
with exposed callaable routines, with or without acces to source code,
it is "linked", not embedded. Linked libraries are common.

From your post and Jeff's new post, you guys obviously mean something
else: along the lines of the source code of the two products being
merged into one product, with one product having the ability to call
routines in the other at a low level. As Jeff's alludes to, there are
issues.

The main problem being source code designed to run as a standlaone
server, not as a linked library. Obviously if the current design were
maintained the issues would continue to be massive and prohiitive. But
if the problem were given to Engineering, they would probably implement
a linked library and eliminate the issue.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Jeff Tallman Posted on 2008-08-26 00:05:36.0Z
From: Jeff Tallman <jeff.tallman@sybase.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEand IQ
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub>
In-Reply-To: <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b348d0@forums-1-dub>
Date: 25 Aug 2008 17:05:36 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219709136 10.22.241.152 (25 Aug 2008 17:05:36 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 25 Aug 2008 17:05:36 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 74
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1997
Article PK: 97597

Let's not get the legal definitions of things confused with what
technically happens - I work for the company and still have fun trying
to sort out the licensing 'legal' definitions.....both the embedding
within an application and the embedding by linking in the code are
versions of embedding....and ASA has supported both for years (i.e. the
ultralight deployment 'embeds' the ASA engine directly into your code -
and on the flip side the 'Embedded RSSD' is the standalone (actually
network) engine.

But as far as embedding - the early IQ back when I started to use it WAS
a separate OpenServer processes outside the ASE engine. The current
IQ implementation started in IQ 12.0 and is based on embedding (and
linking) the ASA engine. The ASA engine handles the connections, the
SQL parsing, stored procedure execution control (not the queries - but
@vars are in the ASA engine area and not in IQ....ASA does the actual
stepwise flow of control and issues each query to the IQ part of the
engine....this whole part to me is one of the weaker links as it causes
a plethora of issues with respect to SQL compatibility). IQ is
responsible for query optimization and execution. Note that ASE itself
has these parts.....

....the difficulty I was pointing to was under the assumption of a
"linked" model (or which ever way you want to refer to it) of embedding
IQ in ASE. While it might sound attractive to do this, the issues are
extensive. An easier approach would be to add the IQ indexing (less FP)
to ASE - and store the index in columns in IQ fashion. But even this
would consume a huge effort as extensive query optimization rewrites
would have to be done. It took 5+ years to get the ASE 15 optimizer to
the GA standpoint - and arguably, it is nowhere near as complex as it
would have to be to handle IQ indexes on top of traditional
btree....index intersection drives IQ whereas it isn't even enabled by
default in ASE 15 (just index unions). I was pointing out this as a
higher level "engineering" issue more than just the code linking
mechanics. At a lower level - as I mentioned - there is all the memory
allocation controls, etc. which are different and yet intrinsic to the
operation as IO costs often depend on whether the memory is accessible
via the allocator or whether a physical read based approach is
necessary. An example is sorting....

Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>> On 2008-08-26 01:26:32 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe" <jason@froebe.net> said:
>>
>>
>> I seriously doubt you've embedded ASE into an application as I doubt
>> you have
>> access to the source code of ASE. Perhaps you misunderstand the
>> definition of
>> 'embedded'.
>
> I do not have access to ASE source, never said I did. As stated, we
> have a BSA Partner Master Agreement with a OEM Schedule, as do hundreds
> of other Partners, which allows us to embed ASE into our apps. The app
> is sold and licensed; ASE is not sold/licensed; we pay Sybase a Royalty
> for each sale. All done without ASE source code. The cust cannot use
> ASE outside the app which it is bundled in. 'Embed' is the term used in
> the legal document, and it means the same thing in the industry. The
> product is unchanged, and embedded in its entirety into another product.
>
> If one binds a product into an app, which means the product was written
> with exposed callaable routines, with or without acces to source code,
> it is "linked", not embedded. Linked libraries are common.
>
> From your post and Jeff's new post, you guys obviously mean something
> else: along the lines of the source code of the two products being
> merged into one product, with one product having the ability to call
> routines in the other at a low level. As Jeff's alludes to, there are
> issues.
>
> The main problem being source code designed to run as a standlaone
> server, not as a linked library. Obviously if the current design were
> maintained the issues would continue to be massive and prohiitive. But
> if the problem were given to Engineering, they would probably implement
> a linked library and eliminate the issue.


Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase] Posted on 2008-08-26 02:06:59.0Z
From: "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]" <jason@froebe.net>
Organization: TeamSybase
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEand IQ
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub>
In-Reply-To: <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 25 Aug 2008 19:06:59 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219716419 10.22.241.152 (25 Aug 2008 19:06:59 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 25 Aug 2008 19:06:59 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 50
X-Authenticated-User: TeamSybase
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1998
Article PK: 97601


Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>> On 2008-08-26 01:26:32 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe" <jason@froebe.net> said:
>>
>>
>> I seriously doubt you've embedded ASE into an application as I doubt
>> you have
>> access to the source code of ASE. Perhaps you misunderstand the
>> definition of
>> 'embedded'.
>
> I do not have access to ASE source, never said I did. As stated, we
> have a BSA Partner Master Agreement with a OEM Schedule, as do hundreds
> of other Partners, which allows us to embed ASE into our apps. The app
> is sold and licensed; ASE is not sold/licensed; we pay Sybase a Royalty
> for each sale. All done without ASE source code. The cust cannot use
> ASE outside the app which it is bundled in. 'Embed' is the term used in
> the legal document, and it means the same thing in the industry. The
> product is unchanged, and embedded in its entirety into another product.
>
> If one binds a product into an app, which means the product was written
> with exposed callaable routines, with or without acces to source code,
> it is "linked", not embedded. Linked libraries are common.
>
> From your post and Jeff's new post, you guys obviously mean something
> else: along the lines of the source code of the two products being
> merged into one product, with one product having the ability to call
> routines in the other at a low level. As Jeff's alludes to, there are
> issues.
>
> The main problem being source code designed to run as a standlaone
> server, not as a linked library. Obviously if the current design were
> maintained the issues would continue to be massive and prohiitive. But
> if the problem were given to Engineering, they would probably implement
> a linked library and eliminate the issue.

I think your right, I clearly misunderstood what you meant by
'embedded'. Sorry about that.

Are you referring to an OEM license of ASE (full build) or is it a
special build from Sybase? Trying to figure out if, in your case, that
you bundle ASE along with your application or if this is a custom build
of ASE that hides itself from the end user / admin in the way that you
can tell SQL Anywhere to.

sorry again about the misunderstanding on my part.
--
Jason L. Froebe
TeamSybase
http://www.froebe.net/blog
MyDatabases Free Magazine http://froebe.net/blog/mydatabases-magazine/


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-26 04:14:51.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b3833b@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 25 Aug 2008 21:14:51 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219724091 10.22.241.152 (25 Aug 2008 21:14:51 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 25 Aug 2008 21:14:51 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 41
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1999
Article PK: 97599


> On 2008-08-26 12:06:59 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
> <jason@froebe.net> said:
>
> I think your right, I clearly misunderstood what you meant by
> 'embedded'. Sorry about that.

Accepted

> Are you referring to an OEM license of ASE (full build)

Yes

> or is it a special build from Sybase?

No

> Trying to figure out if, in your case, that you bundle ASE along with
> your application

Yes

> or if this is a custom build of ASE that hides itself from the end user
> / admin in the way that you can tell SQL Anywhere to.

Well, no, it is not a custom build. But yes, it hides itself from the
end user. I have seen apps where ASE is totally transparent to the end
user, and others where it is pretty obvious (ours is openly badged).
The app supplier is required to do the admin or provide for admin via
the app only; no end user admin or admin burden on the customer's
staff. Under OEM licence, the end user cannot directly engage ASE; and
cannot circumvent the app to do so.

I WANT a custom build, but that is a separate venture.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase] Posted on 2008-08-26 12:14:54.0Z
From: "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]" <jason@froebe.net>
Organization: TeamSybase
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub>
In-Reply-To: <48b3833b@forums-1-dub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub>
Date: 26 Aug 2008 05:14:54 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219752894 10.22.241.152 (26 Aug 2008 05:14:54 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 26 Aug 2008 05:14:54 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 45
X-Authenticated-User: TeamSybase
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2000
Article PK: 97602


Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>> On 2008-08-26 12:06:59 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
>> <jason@froebe.net> said:
>>
>> I think your right, I clearly misunderstood what you meant by
>> 'embedded'. Sorry about that.
>
> Accepted
>
>> Are you referring to an OEM license of ASE (full build)
>
> Yes
>
>> or is it a special build from Sybase?
>
> No
>
>> Trying to figure out if, in your case, that you bundle ASE along with
>> your application
>
> Yes
>
>> or if this is a custom build of ASE that hides itself from the end
>> user / admin in the way that you can tell SQL Anywhere to.
>
> Well, no, it is not a custom build. But yes, it hides itself from the
> end user. I have seen apps where ASE is totally transparent to the end
> user, and others where it is pretty obvious (ours is openly badged).
> The app supplier is required to do the admin or provide for admin via
> the app only; no end user admin or admin burden on the customer's
> staff. Under OEM licence, the end user cannot directly engage ASE; and
> cannot circumvent the app to do so.
>
> I WANT a custom build, but that is a separate venture.

Thanks Derek for clarifying. The company that I work for also OEMs ASE,
along with a few other Sybase products. Here in the States, this is
called bundling not embedding. Leave it to the legal eagles to confuse
us all with nomenclature.

--
Jason L. Froebe
TeamSybase
http://www.froebe.net/blog
MyDatabases Free Magazine http://froebe.net/blog/mydatabases-magazine/


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-26 13:38:25.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b40751@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 26 Aug 2008 06:38:25 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219757905 10.22.241.152 (26 Aug 2008 06:38:25 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 26 Aug 2008 06:38:25 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 33
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2001
Article PK: 97603


> On 2008-08-26 22:14:54 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
> <jason@froebe.net> said:
>
> Thanks Derek for clarifying. The company that I work for also OEMs
> ASE, along with a few other Sybase products. Here in the States, this
> is called bundling not embedding. Leave it to the legal eagles to
> confuse us all with nomenclature.

Over here, bundle is different. I might sell PD/PB/ASE as a bundle
under VAR schedule (commission). but we sell our app with ASE/FFS
embedded under OEM (royalty). Cust can do what they like with the VAR
licences, the bundle is really just a pricing issue. Cust cannot
engage ASE directly in the OEM licence, all our ASE admin is scripted
and run from the app.

But the pont you raise re treatment in the states is interesting.
Twice in the last year, while on P&T consulting assignments, I exposed
unlicensed use of ASE. In both circumstances, ASE was sold under OEM
by an American co in Australia (there were many and they shot through
long ago), and no one was/is providing support. The "bundling" or
"embedding" was so loose that the cust had direct access to ASE (vendor
did not execute the spirit or word of the Australian OEM licence); and
of course the cust's excuse was "hey, I could get at ASE, so I thought
I was allowed to".

--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase] Posted on 2008-08-26 15:21:34.0Z
From: "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]" <jason@froebe.net>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Organization: TeamSybase[67.153.8.235]
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub>
X-Newsreader: AspNNTP 1.50 (JodoHost)
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 26 Aug 2008 08:21:34 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219764094 10.22.241.152 (26 Aug 2008 08:21:34 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 26 Aug 2008 08:21:34 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 47
X-Authenticated-User: TeamSybase
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2002
Article PK: 97604

On 26 Aug 2008 06:38:25 -0700,
in sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion

Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom> wrote:
>> On 2008-08-26 22:14:54 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
>> <jason@froebe.net> said:
>>
>> Thanks Derek for clarifying. The company that I work for also OEMs
>> ASE, along with a few other Sybase products. Here in the States, this
>> is called bundling not embedding. Leave it to the legal eagles to
>> confuse us all with nomenclature.
>
>Over here, bundle is different. I might sell PD/PB/ASE as a bundle
>under VAR schedule (commission). but we sell our app with ASE/FFS
>embedded under OEM (royalty). Cust can do what they like with the VAR
>licences, the bundle is really just a pricing issue. Cust cannot
>engage ASE directly in the OEM licence, all our ASE admin is scripted
>and run from the app.
>
>But the pont you raise re treatment in the states is interesting.
>Twice in the last year, while on P&T consulting assignments, I exposed
>unlicensed use of ASE. In both circumstances, ASE was sold under OEM
>by an American co in Australia (there were many and they shot through
>long ago), and no one was/is providing support. The "bundling" or
>"embedding" was so loose that the cust had direct access to ASE (vendor
>did not execute the spirit or word of the Australian OEM licence); and
>of course the cust's excuse was "hey, I could get at ASE, so I thought
>I was allowed to".
>
>--
>Cheers
>Derek
>Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
>Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
>Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
>Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability
>

AFAIK, there isn't such a restriction in the States as far as accessing the
database server directly. If there is, no one is telling the techs.

I know there can be restrictions as to what the server is used for.

--
Jason L. Froebe
TeamSybase
http://www.froebe.net/blog
MyDatabases Free Magazine http://froebe.net/blog/mydatabases-magazine/


Jeff Tallman Posted on 2008-08-26 18:26:51.0Z
From: Jeff Tallman <jeff.tallman@sybase.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub>
In-Reply-To: <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 26 Aug 2008 11:26:51 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219775211 10.22.241.152 (26 Aug 2008 11:26:51 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 26 Aug 2008 11:26:51 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 61
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2003
Article PK: 97605

Actually there ARE restrictions. Here in the US (and likely Canada) if
an OEM is shipping ASE with their product, the typical contractual
agreement is an 'application license' - which simply is a 'paper'
restriction vs. a technical one. Such a license restricts ASE to only
be used by the application with no DDL access by end users, etc....and
all access must be made via the application. Additionally, the end
customer does not get Sybase support directly - they call the OEM
provider.

Of course, all of this is subject to contractual language specified when
the deal is made as some of the terms can be different due to necessity
of the environment.

Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase] wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2008 06:38:25 -0700,
> in sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
> Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom> wrote:
>>> On 2008-08-26 22:14:54 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
>>> <jason@froebe.net> said:
>>>
>>> Thanks Derek for clarifying. The company that I work for also OEMs
>>> ASE, along with a few other Sybase products. Here in the States, this
>>> is called bundling not embedding. Leave it to the legal eagles to
>>> confuse us all with nomenclature.
>> Over here, bundle is different. I might sell PD/PB/ASE as a bundle
>> under VAR schedule (commission). but we sell our app with ASE/FFS
>> embedded under OEM (royalty). Cust can do what they like with the VAR
>> licences, the bundle is really just a pricing issue. Cust cannot
>> engage ASE directly in the OEM licence, all our ASE admin is scripted
>> and run from the app.
>>
>> But the pont you raise re treatment in the states is interesting.
>> Twice in the last year, while on P&T consulting assignments, I exposed
>> unlicensed use of ASE. In both circumstances, ASE was sold under OEM
>> by an American co in Australia (there were many and they shot through
>> long ago), and no one was/is providing support. The "bundling" or
>> "embedding" was so loose that the cust had direct access to ASE (vendor
>> did not execute the spirit or word of the Australian OEM licence); and
>> of course the cust's excuse was "hey, I could get at ASE, so I thought
>> I was allowed to".
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Derek
>> Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
>> Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
>> Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
>> Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability
>>
>
> AFAIK, there isn't such a restriction in the States as far as accessing the
> database server directly. If there is, no one is telling the techs.
>
> I know there can be restrictions as to what the server is used for.
>
> --
> Jason L. Froebe
> TeamSybase
> http://www.froebe.net/blog
> MyDatabases Free Magazine http://froebe.net/blog/mydatabases-magazine/


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-27 02:52:34.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b4c172@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 26 Aug 2008 19:52:34 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219805554 10.22.241.152 (26 Aug 2008 19:52:34 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 26 Aug 2008 19:52:34 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 41
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2004
Article PK: 97606

On 2008-08-27 04:26:51 +1000, Jeff Tallman <jeff.tallman@sybase.com> said:

> Actually there ARE restrictions. Here in the US (and likely Canada)
> if an OEM is shipping ASE with their product, the typical contractual
> agreement is an 'application license' - which simply is a 'paper'
> restriction vs. a technical one.

All over the world.

> Such a license restricts ASE to only be used by the application with no
> DDL access by end users, etc....and all access must be made via the
> application. Additionally, the end customer does not get Sybase
> support directly - they call the OEM provider.

That's right.

I may have contributed to your confusion by using terms like "engage
ASE directly", so retract that. Under OEM, the cust cannot change a
line of (existing, app) SQL code; or write new SQL to access the
(existing, app objects); or write DDL; or DML to access the new objects.

It is a legal 'paper' restriction, not a technical one, and thus is
sometimes abused. There is a legal onus upon the app supplier to
package the app plus ASE properly; disallow certain types of access;
etc., that is why professional vendors make ASE transparent or "hide"
it; supply a full set of scripts, etc; therefore it is hard for the
cust to use Sybase outside the OEM licence. But many vendors are not
professional and have not complied with ther legal obligations,
therefore it is easy for the cust to use Sybase outside the OEM licence.

Either way, the cust is issued with the OEM licence and terms and
conditions. Ignorance of it is never an acceptable defence for using
Sybase outside OEM restrictions.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase] Posted on 2008-08-27 15:23:12.0Z
From: "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]" <jason@froebe.net>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Organization: TeamSybase[67.153.8.235]
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub>
X-Newsreader: AspNNTP 1.50 (JodoHost)
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 27 Aug 2008 08:23:12 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219850592 10.22.241.152 (27 Aug 2008 08:23:12 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 27 Aug 2008 08:23:12 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 11
X-Authenticated-User: TeamSybase
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2005
Article PK: 97607

Looks like the restriction is more about restricting the use of the ASE server
to just that application(s) licensed from the vendor. I know of several
instances where customers provided better indexes and queries (either adhoc or
stored proc) optimized for their data. While technically a no-no from the OEM
license, I don't see anything morally wrong in doing so as long as the use of
ASE is still restricted to those application(s). :)
--
Jason L. Froebe
TeamSybase
http://www.froebe.net/blog
MyDatabases Free Magazine http://froebe.net/blog/mydatabases-magazine/


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-27 20:29:24.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b5b923@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 27 Aug 2008 13:29:24 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219868964 10.22.241.152 (27 Aug 2008 13:29:24 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 27 Aug 2008 13:29:24 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 75
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2006
Article PK: 97608


> On 2008-08-28 01:23:12 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
> <jason@froebe.net> said:
>
> Looks like the restriction is more about restricting the use of the ASE server
> to just that application(s) licensed from the vendor. I know of several
> instances where customers provided better indexes and queries (either adhoc or
> stored proc) optimized for their data. While technically a no-no from the OEM
> license, I don't see anything morally wrong in doing so as long as the use of
> ASE is still restricted to those application(s). :)

I can see the sense in that argument. However, that is exactly the
kind of logic that brought the Nazis to power and allow colonial powers
to pillage third world resources; justified illegal activity at the
personal level leads to anarchy. When the individual thinks themselves
above the law, we have anarchy by definition. In civilised societies,
we are supposed to petition and change the law, not break it because we
have a "moral justification". If one's wife will not sleep with them,
one might feel "morally justified" in seeking comfort elsewhere, but it
is still wrong; a better person would leave their wife first, then seek
comfort elsewhere. If your employer does not pay you, you might feel
"morally justified" in stealing something, but it is illegal; someone
with higher moral standards would petition or sue the employer. The
consequences need to be considered, it is silly to end up with a
criminal record over a "morally justified" crime, especially when there
are perfectly ordinary alternatives.

We are not the first people to be discussing the exact relevant legal
points of OEM licences, and Sybase is not the first co with a database
that is embedded into 3rd party software. When OEM contracts for
software were being drawn up and argued for the first time (1970's in
my experience, but it could have been earlier), they had to draw the
line somewhere meaningful; that line got argued and moved slightly and
reinforced, and now it is strongly established legal precedent. You
cannot change a single line of code (and that includes DDL). It is not
technically a legal no-no, it is just illegal and immoral, on strongly
established grounds, regardless of what you and I may think.

Personally, my morals are tightly integrated with my legal
restrictions, so I will avoid comment on people who have separated the
two in their minds.

If you can identify a better index, the legal method of implementing it
is to prevail on the vendor (with whom you have a support contract) to
make the change. If you want to do it yourself, first buy an ordinary
Sybase licence for the box/use, and then make the change yourself.

In my experience, it is junior managers and coders that break the law,
and have some "justifcation" for it. All I have had to do is take it
up the ladder, until I reach an executive who understands that the
risks of using unlicensed software is not justifiable, and they buy the
licence out of the risk budget, not the IT budget. I understand that
it is not so in America, but in most countries executives, Director
level and above, are personally bound by law (ie. they are liable
personally for commercial or criminal prosecution). My personal best
was: 3 months with the IT Director dancing aroung the problem; the
second 3 months with me refusing to attend on-site until the licence
issue was cleared up; 10 minutes in the office of the CEO/Risk and I
walked out with a signed Exhibit A for an undiscounted six figure sum
(ok, the discount was overlooking the penalties legally owed) and a
commitment to finish the project. Legal compliance and honesty just
raises the bar for everyone; people can do their jobs openly and be
proud of it.

Think about it this way. In your good country, they have implemented
the Patriot Act and Sarbanes Oxley. I do not care how marvellous your
moral justification for breaking it is, but if you do, you will be
transported to Guantanamo, and you will not get sympathy from anyone.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase] Posted on 2008-08-28 01:43:57.0Z
From: "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]" <jason@froebe.net>
Organization: TeamSybase
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub> <48b5b923@forums-1-dub>
In-Reply-To: <48b5b923@forums-1-dub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b602dd@forums-1-dub>
Date: 27 Aug 2008 18:43:57 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219887837 10.22.241.152 (27 Aug 2008 18:43:57 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 27 Aug 2008 18:43:57 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 81
X-Authenticated-User: TeamSybase
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2007
Article PK: 97610


Derek Asirvadem wrote:
>> On 2008-08-28 01:23:12 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
>> <jason@froebe.net> said:
>>
>> Looks like the restriction is more about restricting the use of the
>> ASE server
>> to just that application(s) licensed from the vendor. I know of several
>> instances where customers provided better indexes and queries (either
>> adhoc or
>> stored proc) optimized for their data. While technically a no-no from
>> the OEM
>> license, I don't see anything morally wrong in doing so as long as the
>> use of
>> ASE is still restricted to those application(s). :)
>
> I can see the sense in that argument. However, that is exactly the kind
> of logic that brought the Nazis to power and allow colonial powers to
> pillage third world resources; justified illegal activity at the
> personal level leads to anarchy. When the individual thinks themselves
> above the law, we have anarchy by definition. In civilised societies,
> we are supposed to petition and change the law, not break it because we
> have a "moral justification". If one's wife will not sleep with them,
> one might feel "morally justified" in seeking comfort elsewhere, but it
> is still wrong; a better person would leave their wife first, then seek
> comfort elsewhere. If your employer does not pay you, you might feel
> "morally justified" in stealing something, but it is illegal; someone
> with higher moral standards would petition or sue the employer. The
> consequences need to be considered, it is silly to end up with a
> criminal record over a "morally justified" crime, especially when there
> are perfectly ordinary alternatives.
>
> We are not the first people to be discussing the exact relevant legal
> points of OEM licences, and Sybase is not the first co with a database
> that is embedded into 3rd party software. When OEM contracts for
> software were being drawn up and argued for the first time (1970's in my
> experience, but it could have been earlier), they had to draw the line
> somewhere meaningful; that line got argued and moved slightly and
> reinforced, and now it is strongly established legal precedent. You
> cannot change a single line of code (and that includes DDL). It is not
> technically a legal no-no, it is just illegal and immoral, on strongly
> established grounds, regardless of what you and I may think.
>
> Personally, my morals are tightly integrated with my legal restrictions,
> so I will avoid comment on people who have separated the two in their
> minds.
>
> If you can identify a better index, the legal method of implementing it
> is to prevail on the vendor (with whom you have a support contract) to
> make the change. If you want to do it yourself, first buy an ordinary
> Sybase licence for the box/use, and then make the change yourself.
>
> In my experience, it is junior managers and coders that break the law,
> and have some "justifcation" for it. All I have had to do is take it up
> the ladder, until I reach an executive who understands that the risks of
> using unlicensed software is not justifiable, and they buy the licence
> out of the risk budget, not the IT budget. I understand that it is not
> so in America, but in most countries executives, Director level and
> above, are personally bound by law (ie. they are liable personally for
> commercial or criminal prosecution). My personal best was: 3 months
> with the IT Director dancing aroung the problem; the second 3 months
> with me refusing to attend on-site until the licence issue was cleared
> up; 10 minutes in the office of the CEO/Risk and I walked out with a
> signed Exhibit A for an undiscounted six figure sum (ok, the discount
> was overlooking the penalties legally owed) and a commitment to finish
> the project. Legal compliance and honesty just raises the bar for
> everyone; people can do their jobs openly and be proud of it.
>
> Think about it this way. In your good country, they have implemented
> the Patriot Act and Sarbanes Oxley. I do not care how marvellous your
> moral justification for breaking it is, but if you do, you will be
> transported to Guantanamo, and you will not get sympathy from anyone.

Not sure either the Patriot Act or Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) Act applies to
OEM licensing but IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

Point taken on tying moral and legal issues together. Personally, I
think it is more a grey area instead of black and white. That's just me
though :)

jason


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-28 03:53:11.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b62126@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub> <48b5b923@forums-1-dub> <48b602dd@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 27 Aug 2008 20:53:11 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219895591 10.22.241.152 (27 Aug 2008 20:53:11 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 27 Aug 2008 20:53:11 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 47
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2008
Article PK: 97609


> On 2008-08-28 11:43:57 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
> <jason@froebe.net> said:
>
>> Think about it this way. In your good country, they have implemented
>> the Patriot Act and Sarbanes Oxley. I do not care how marvellous your
>> moral justification for breaking it is, but if you do, you will be
>> transported to Guantanamo, and you will not get sympathy from anyone.
>
> Not sure either the Patriot Act or Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) Act applies to
> OEM licensing but IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

I didn't say the two are related ... I was providing an example of "no
matter how good the moral justification [for breaching the Act] you
will be transported to solitary confinement in a foreign country and no
one will give you sympathy"

> Point taken on tying moral and legal issues together. Personally, I
> think it is more a grey area instead of black and white. That's just
> me though :)

I think what I am trying to communicate, what you are not getting (and
neither of us has to be "right" about this one; I do not need you to
agree; I just need you to understand the point) is, the law IS black
and white. Lawyers have the ability and knowledge to push the
envelope, plead extenuating circumstances, come up with unexpected and
obscure points, etc and that may make it look like gray to us
non-lawyers, but in my experience, regardless of how the cases for the
two sides are built up, when it gets to court, in IS black or white.
The moral justification MAY have value WRT influencing a reduction of
the sentence, but it is NOT applicable re the crime or the conviction.

The Nazis had a great moral justification, but I cannot be asked to
read the whole story, because what they did was plain simple genocide,
and that's illegal. George Dubya may have had a great moral
justification (whether true or false is a separate issue) but it is
simply illegal to invade another country, kill people and steal their
resources. There might be some moral justification in a particular
circumstance, in improving indices in an OEM implementation but it is
simply illegal.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Roland Smith [TeamSybase] Posted on 2008-08-28 14:00:09.0Z
From: "Roland Smith [TeamSybase]" <rsmith_at_trusthss_dot_com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub> <48b5b923@forums-1-dub> <48b602dd@forums-1-dub> <48b62126@forums-1-dub>
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
Lines: 56
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b6af69$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 28 Aug 2008 07:00:09 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219932009 10.22.241.152 (28 Aug 2008 07:00:09 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 28 Aug 2008 07:00:09 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2009
Article PK: 97611

What if one of your end users purchased InfoMaker so they could write their
own reports?

Would that violate the OEM license? They would be accessing the database
outside the application.

"Derek Asirvadem" <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom> wrote in message
news:48b62126@forums-1-dub...
>> On 2008-08-28 11:43:57 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
>> <jason@froebe.net> said:
>>
>>> Think about it this way. In your good country, they have implemented
>>> the Patriot Act and Sarbanes Oxley. I do not care how marvellous your
>>> moral justification for breaking it is, but if you do, you will be
>>> transported to Guantanamo, and you will not get sympathy from anyone.
>>
>> Not sure either the Patriot Act or Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) Act applies to
>> OEM licensing but IANAL (I am not a lawyer).
>
> I didn't say the two are related ... I was providing an example of "no
> matter how good the moral justification [for breaching the Act] you will
> be transported to solitary confinement in a foreign country and no one
> will give you sympathy"
>
>> Point taken on tying moral and legal issues together. Personally, I
>> think it is more a grey area instead of black and white. That's just me
>> though :)
>
> I think what I am trying to communicate, what you are not getting (and
> neither of us has to be "right" about this one; I do not need you to
> agree; I just need you to understand the point) is, the law IS black and
> white. Lawyers have the ability and knowledge to push the envelope, plead
> extenuating circumstances, come up with unexpected and obscure points, etc
> and that may make it look like gray to us non-lawyers, but in my
> experience, regardless of how the cases for the two sides are built up,
> when it gets to court, in IS black or white. The moral justification MAY
> have value WRT influencing a reduction of the sentence, but it is NOT
> applicable re the crime or the conviction.
>
> The Nazis had a great moral justification, but I cannot be asked to read
> the whole story, because what they did was plain simple genocide, and
> that's illegal. George Dubya may have had a great moral justification
> (whether true or false is a separate issue) but it is simply illegal to
> invade another country, kill people and steal their resources. There
> might be some moral justification in a particular circumstance, in
> improving indices in an OEM implementation but it is simply illegal.
> --
> Cheers
> Derek
> Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
> Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
> Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
> Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability
>


Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase] Posted on 2008-08-28 17:35:29.0Z
From: "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]" <jason@froebe.net>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Organization: TeamSybase[67.153.8.235]
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub> <48b5b923@forums-1-dub> <48b602dd@forums-1-dub> <48b62126@forums-1-dub> <48b6af69$1@forums-1-dub>
X-Newsreader: AspNNTP 1.50 (JodoHost)
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b6e1e1$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 28 Aug 2008 10:35:29 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219944929 10.22.241.152 (28 Aug 2008 10:35:29 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 28 Aug 2008 10:35:29 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 35
X-Authenticated-User: TeamSybase
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2010
Article PK: 97612

On 28 Aug 2008 07:00:09 -0700,
in sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion

Roland Smith [TeamSybase] <rsmith_at_trusthss_dot_com> wrote:
>What if one of your end users purchased InfoMaker so they could write their
>own reports?
>
>Would that violate the OEM license? They would be accessing the database
>outside the application.

That's what I'm saying :)

Under the OEM license, my guess is no, it wouldn't be allowed. That being said,
the data is owned by the customer and they do have a right to access their
(intellectual) property regardless of the *contractual* agreements within the
OEM license. I rather doubt that Sybase would care if company X purchased, say
ProActive DBA to monitor their OEM'd Sybase ASE server.

The whole discussion of OEM licensing and whether or not action Y is
illegal/immoral is really kind of silly if you think about it. Sybase owns the
Sybase software and whether they enforce strict letter by letter following of
the OEM license is up to Sybase. We can debate about it until we turn blue in
the face but none of us can really say for certain that actions A, B or C would
be in violation of the OEM license or whether any violation would be illegal or
immoral.

That all being said, I don't mind the rambling that has gone on in this thread.
The whole thing tying OEM violations to the rise of the Nazis and the
SOX/Patriot acts are a bit of a warped side trip but hey, it makes for an
interesting read nonetheless. No where near as entertaining as a new episode of
Eureka but there you have it :)
--
Jason L. Froebe
TeamSybase
http://www.froebe.net/blog
MyDatabases Free Magazine http://froebe.net/blog/mydatabases-magazine/


Jeff Tallman Posted on 2008-08-28 19:39:16.0Z
From: Jeff Tallman <jeff.tallman@sybase.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub> <48b5b923@forums-1-dub> <48b602dd@forums-1-dub> <48b62126@forums-1-dub> <48b6af69$1@forums-1-dub> <48b6e1e1$1@forums-1-dub>
In-Reply-To: <48b6e1e1$1@forums-1-dub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b6fee4$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 28 Aug 2008 12:39:16 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219952356 10.22.241.152 (28 Aug 2008 12:39:16 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 28 Aug 2008 12:39:16 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 61
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2011
Article PK: 97614

Correct - the infomaker access would be disallowed. First, it is a NEW
application that is not part of the OEM agreement - and secondly, it
likely will make schema changes (the goofy pbcat tables).

IRT Monitoring tools - those are allowed with the provisio that they do
not alter the OEM server - i.e. they can't build a repository in it for
storing trend analysis data. If you need a repository, use the express
edition.....

Secondly, enforcement is actually first up to the CIO of the company
under the requirements to enforce fudiciary responsibilities and
compliance. If you abuse an OEM license by adding databases and
applications outside the scope of the OEM provider's - first, you just
wreaked havoc on the OEM partner's ability to tightly control the
parameters to ensure system stability (i.e. I was at a location once
where they changed the server's default locking scheme for an OEM app).
Adding an index or changing the locking scheme is NOT a violation
provided that the OEM vendor's support staff okays this and is aware of
the total impact of the change. If the OEM vendor okay's the change,
then the change is considered part of the application. However, if you
add a non-DBA type procedure - i.e. a custom report - that is invoked
via isql - ooops. Violated the agreement.

Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase] wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2008 07:00:09 -0700,
> in sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
> Roland Smith [TeamSybase] <rsmith_at_trusthss_dot_com> wrote:
>> What if one of your end users purchased InfoMaker so they could write their
>> own reports?
>>
>> Would that violate the OEM license? They would be accessing the database
>> outside the application.
>
> That's what I'm saying :)
>
> Under the OEM license, my guess is no, it wouldn't be allowed. That being said,
> the data is owned by the customer and they do have a right to access their
> (intellectual) property regardless of the *contractual* agreements within the
> OEM license. I rather doubt that Sybase would care if company X purchased, say
> ProActive DBA to monitor their OEM'd Sybase ASE server.
>
> The whole discussion of OEM licensing and whether or not action Y is
> illegal/immoral is really kind of silly if you think about it. Sybase owns the
> Sybase software and whether they enforce strict letter by letter following of
> the OEM license is up to Sybase. We can debate about it until we turn blue in
> the face but none of us can really say for certain that actions A, B or C would
> be in violation of the OEM license or whether any violation would be illegal or
> immoral.
>
> That all being said, I don't mind the rambling that has gone on in this thread.
> The whole thing tying OEM violations to the rise of the Nazis and the
> SOX/Patriot acts are a bit of a warped side trip but hey, it makes for an
> interesting read nonetheless. No where near as entertaining as a new episode of
> Eureka but there you have it :)
> --
> Jason L. Froebe
> TeamSybase
> http://www.froebe.net/blog
> MyDatabases Free Magazine http://froebe.net/blog/mydatabases-magazine/


Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase] Posted on 2008-08-28 21:13:37.0Z
From: "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]" <jason@froebe.net>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Organization: TeamSybase[67.153.8.235]
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub> <48b5b923@forums-1-dub> <48b602dd@forums-1-dub> <48b62126@forums-1-dub> <48b6af69$1@forums-1-dub> <48b6e1e1$1@forums-1-dub> <48b6fee4$1@forums-1-dub>
X-Newsreader: AspNNTP 1.50 (JodoHost)
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b71501$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 28 Aug 2008 14:13:37 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219958017 10.22.241.152 (28 Aug 2008 14:13:37 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 28 Aug 2008 14:13:37 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 33
X-Authenticated-User: TeamSybase
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2012
Article PK: 97613

On 28 Aug 2008 12:39:16 -0700,
in sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion

Jeff Tallman <jeff.tallman@sybase.com> wrote:
>Correct - the infomaker access would be disallowed. First, it is a NEW
>application that is not part of the OEM agreement - and secondly, it
>likely will make schema changes (the goofy pbcat tables).
>
>IRT Monitoring tools - those are allowed with the provisio that they do
>not alter the OEM server - i.e. they can't build a repository in it for
>storing trend analysis data. If you need a repository, use the express
>edition.....
>
>Secondly, enforcement is actually first up to the CIO of the company
>under the requirements to enforce fudiciary responsibilities and
>compliance. If you abuse an OEM license by adding databases and
>applications outside the scope of the OEM provider's - first, you just
>wreaked havoc on the OEM partner's ability to tightly control the
>parameters to ensure system stability (i.e. I was at a location once
>where they changed the server's default locking scheme for an OEM app).
> Adding an index or changing the locking scheme is NOT a violation
>provided that the OEM vendor's support staff okays this and is aware of
>the total impact of the change. If the OEM vendor okay's the change,
>then the change is considered part of the application. However, if you
>add a non-DBA type procedure - i.e. a custom report - that is invoked
>via isql - ooops. Violated the agreement.
>

Thanks Jeff :)
--
Jason L. Froebe
TeamSybase
http://www.froebe.net/blog
MyDatabases Free Magazine http://froebe.net/blog/mydatabases-magazine/


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-30 14:00:49.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b95290@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub> <48b5b923@forums-1-dub> <48b602dd@forums-1-dub> <48b62126@forums-1-dub> <48b6af69$1@forums-1-dub> <48b6e1e1$1@forums-1-dub> <48b6fee4$1@forums-1-dub> <48b71501$1@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 30 Aug 2008 07:00:49 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1220104849 10.22.241.152 (30 Aug 2008 07:00:49 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 30 Aug 2008 07:00:49 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 50
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2018
Article PK: 97620


> On 2008-08-29 07:13:37 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
> <jason@froebe.net> said:

The other problem I have with this thread is that somehow, you have
managed to maintain a tone, that either the vendor, or Sybase is doing
the cust, the owner of he data, a disservice. And that is the
unexpressed moral justification for breaking the law or the OEM licence.

I am not suggesting it is a free country, but it defnitely is a free
capitalist market place. No one put a gun to the cust's head and
forced them to hand over their money. No, the cust freely purchased
the app for a price, with full knowledge of the contract and
conditions. At that point the cust also had a choice to instead,
purchase a Full Use licence. You moved into an apartment freely, with
full knowledge of the contract and conditions. You also had a choice
to obtain a mortgage and buy a house in the country. No one can
unilaterally change a contract after the fact of execution. They can
re-negotiate, etc, but any change must be agreed to and signed off by
both parties (not unilateral).

It is not open to the cust to later cry about the limitations of
whatever licence they did purchase; for you to cry about not being
allowed to host parties for 100 undergrads in your flat. It does not
matter that the cust owns the data, or that Sybase is capable of much
more than what the vendor has delivered, or that you think you "should"
be able do what you like in "your" "home" in a "free" country. And
that is because the cust and you are already bound by a contract, which
preceded the change of heart. At that point the cust STILL has choice:
renegotiate the contract and purchase a Full Use licence, or continue
being bound by the OEM licence. No one is putting a gun to their head.
But if they exceed the terms of their licence (a choice they do not
have because their previous choice binds them), they are simply illegal.

If you decide to commit yourself to one woman for the rest of your
natural life, you are implicitly saying "no" to all the young lovelies
that cross your path in future. The only way you can have an affair is
by breaking your contract; it is not your wife who is the bad guy, a
monster who denies your freedom to choose. No, it is your previous
freely made commitment to yourself that prohibits you and [should]
govern your subsequent choices. And if you meet someone that causes
you to change your commitment, no problem, get a divorce first.
Otherwise you are operating illegally.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-30 01:50:04.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b8a74b@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub> <48b5b923@forums-1-dub> <48b602dd@forums-1-dub> <48b62126@forums-1-dub> <48b6af69$1@forums-1-dub> <48b6e1e1$1@forums-1-dub> <48b6fee4$1@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 29 Aug 2008 18:50:04 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1220061004 10.22.241.152 (29 Aug 2008 18:50:04 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 29 Aug 2008 18:50:04 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 24
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2013
Article PK: 97618


> On 2008-08-29 05:39:16 +1000, Jeff Tallman <jeff.tallman@sybase.com> said:
>
> Adding an index or changing the locking scheme is NOT a violation
> provided that the OEM vendor's support staff okays this and is aware of
> the total impact of the change. If the OEM vendor okay's the change,
> then the change is considered part of the application.

That is incorrect. The cust adding the index or changing the
lcokscheme or executing DDL, is a breach of the OEM Licence. There is
no big deal for the cust to ask the vendor to do that. What is more
common is, the cust identifies the perf problem or whatever to the
vendor, and the vendor comes up with their own considered and tested
solution (I agree, in the context of their whole app; their whole cust
base; the level of custom support they provide; etc), and the vendor
implements it on the cust machine. For custom support with a problem
cust site, it is no big deal to implement and test one-offs on site.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-30 02:35:04.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b8b1d7@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub> <48b5b923@forums-1-dub> <48b602dd@forums-1-dub> <48b62126@forums-1-dub> <48b6af69$1@forums-1-dub> <48b6e1e1$1@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 29 Aug 2008 19:35:04 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1220063704 10.22.241.152 (29 Aug 2008 19:35:04 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 29 Aug 2008 19:35:04 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 52
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2015
Article PK: 97616


> On 2008-08-29 03:35:29 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
> <jason@froebe.net> said:
>
> The whole discussion of OEM licensing and whether or not action Y is
> illegal/immoral is really kind of silly if you think about it. Sybase owns the
> Sybase software and whether they enforce strict letter by letter following of
> the OEM license is up to Sybase. We can debate about it until we turn blue in
> the face but none of us can really say for certain that actions A, B or C would
> be in violation of the OEM license or whether any violation would be illegal or
> immoral.

Yes we can. And it is not open to interpretation by the likes of you
and me, the law is exact and specific; the contract is exact and
specific. What we are discussing here, what I was trying to explain
and overcome is, the IGNORANCE of that.

People who are ignorant (and I use the term as it is technically
defined, without any negative connotation) often argue about things
that they are ignorant of, precisely because they are ignorant of it.
They turn blue in the face because all their discussion never touches
the knowledge of the subject. They moment they learn (and accept) the
facts, theh knowledge of the subject, their ignorance vapourises, and
there is no possibility of argument.

Whether anyone thinks it is silly or not is irrelevant. In this
commercial world, what is relevant is lost income. No one cares if the
breach is small, but when it is $300k to Sybase, 35% of which is our
commission (as in the actual "personal best" occurence I provided
above), there is no discussion to be had.

> That all being said, I don't mind the rambling that has gone on in this thread.
> The whole thing tying OEM violations to the rise of the Nazis and the
> SOX/Patriot acts are a bit of a warped side trip but hey, it makes for an
> interesting read nonetheless. No where near as entertaining as a new
> episode of
> Eureka but there you have it :)

Certainly, I used examples to explain the point, but I did NOT tie
anything to anything else (as evidenced, you interpreted that,
therefore any "warp" is on your side, sorry). It is better to use
examples that are removed from the discussed subject, and which are
unarguable re the distinction being discussed. We were discussing the
distinction of what is illegal; what is illegal but morally justified.
Apparently lost to you, so I will stop trying to explain now.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-30 04:07:58.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b8c79e@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub> <48b5b923@forums-1-dub> <48b602dd@forums-1-dub> <48b62126@forums-1-dub> <48b6af69$1@forums-1-dub> <48b6e1e1$1@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 29 Aug 2008 21:07:58 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1220069278 10.22.241.152 (29 Aug 2008 21:07:58 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 29 Aug 2008 21:07:58 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 62
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2017
Article PK: 97619


> On 2008-08-29 03:35:29 +1000, "Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase]"
> <jason@froebe.net> said:
>
> the data is owned by the customer and they do have a right to access their
> (intellectual) property regardless of the *contractual* agreements within the
> OEM license.

That statement should not go without response. And this is where you
allow your moral justification to override the law that constrains the
rest of us. In this case your are presenting that one legal right
(ownership of the data) overrides another legal right by another party
(no changes to the database). That is incorrect. Each of these legal
rights are not revoked by other rights, that's why we have a legal
profession, and why ordinary people should not make [legal] decisions
without legal advice.

It a previous thread, you have demonstrated not only ignorance
(technical use of the word again, no connotation) of, but also
unillingness to accept the simple definition of the term Intellectual
Property. Therefore I will not attempt to explain it to you or to
convince you. For the rest of the readership:
1 the database system is software owned by Sybase, it is their IP,
provided under a licence to use for a fee, and is not sold
2  the database [the container] is software, it is owned by the vendor,
it is their IP, supplied under a licence to use for a fee, and is not
sold
3 the data [the content] is an asset owned by the customer, for which
they do not need licences. It is not their "IP" in the context of this
discussion (although it may contain intellectual or commercial value,
which they may wish to protect). Placing said asset into the database,
which is the vendor's IP, requires them to maintan the terms of that
licence [2]. That expressly means that their right (legal, moral, or
otherwise) to "their" data, does not allow them to override the rights
of vendor.

Consider this. If you put your furniture in an apartment for which you
have a rental contract with the landlord; in the event of a dispute
with the landlord, he has a legal right to change the locks and impound
your furniture until you pay the outstanding rent, or if disputed,
until the outstanding rent issue is resolved. Your right of ownership
of the furniture is not disputed. But it does not give you the legal
right break into the apartment and remove "your" furniture. Until the
debt is paid, in legal terms, the furniture is not "yours", it is an
asset that can be disposed of to offset an unpaid debt. There are
perfectly legal methods to recovering your furniture, without breaking
the law, or taking it into your own hands.

Going into business, demands that you educate yourself re legal issues
re running a business and dealing with the assets
transferred/sold/licensed by the business, and pay substantially for
professional legal advice. That is not demanded of employees. BUt the
employer has a legal obligation to ensure that thie employees operate
within the legal terms that the business is bound by. Over here, any
substantial business has a Compliance Officer to execute that.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-30 02:28:06.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b8b036@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub> <48b5b923@forums-1-dub> <48b602dd@forums-1-dub> <48b62126@forums-1-dub> <48b6af69$1@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 29 Aug 2008 19:28:06 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1220063286 10.22.241.152 (29 Aug 2008 19:28:06 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 29 Aug 2008 19:28:06 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 71
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2014
Article PK: 97615


> On 2008-08-29 00:00:09 +1000, "Roland Smith [TeamSybase]"
> <rsmith_at_trusthss_dot_com> said:
>
> What if one of your end users purchased InfoMaker so they could write
> their own reports?
>
> Would that violate the OEM license? They would be accessing the
> database outside the application.

_IF_ Sybase ASE was supplied under OEM Licence, and the cust accessing
the database via anything other than that which the vendor supplied,
the cust is breaching the OEM Licence.

That is not really the point. We are getting caught up in the context
of the restriction of the OEM Licence. The vendor/cust has many
options available to them, which they can purchase either through the
vendor or directly from Sybase. We are incorrectly discussing the
capabilities of Sybase, which is not relevant in the context of [the
limited Sybase delivery that the vendor provided in] the app that the
vedor delivered.

1 There is no big deal for the cust to purchase InfoMaker or whatever
via the vendor, and avoid breaching the OEM licence, while remaining
with the OEM licence.

2 In our case, we supply full and unrestricted access to the
customer's data (we acknowledge that they own the data but not the
software/database) via our app package which includes whatever they
need for reports. At the high end, we have supplied BusinessObjects
(also under OEM), with a full Universe they cannot change, which allows
them to write any ad hod report or packaged report and distribute same.

3 Where the cust wants full and unrestricted access to their database
(not just the data), and this is common with the major banks here, we
simply sell them a Full Use licence under our BSA/VAR Schedule, and
supply the app separately without Sybase embedded and without paying
Sybase a royalty. No big deal. Cust pays for what they want, Sybase
gets a full licence fee, and we get our VAR commission.

Back to your question. The onus is really on the vendor to identify
the app they are providing and to package it properly. In my
experience, that is where the grey area is, not in the terms of the OEM
or Full Use licence, not in the law or the interpretation of it
(although as evidenced here, some people are grossly ignorant of it).
In an OEM situation there is no explicit contract executed between the
cust and Sybase; there IS a contract between Sybase and the vendor.
The cust has to be made aware that he is getting something with Sybase
embedded, and that he cannot use it directly. The point is the cust
has a contract, and support, and a relationship with the vendor; they
could and should be servicing the custs changing needs (InfoMaker
through to BusinessObjects through to DDL through to new DML).

In the case of the breach identified above, after the vendor had gone
out of business, the cust had started by doing their own database
maintenance. That MAY have been justified and overlooked. But they
crossed a black and white line (not grey band) when the started doing
their own ASE maintenence, as they are restricted to getting support
(including ESDs and new ASE releases) from the vendor. Over the years,
they built their own additional separate in-house database and
application, that act clearly required a Full Use licence, regardless
of whether they already had an OEM licence or not). It was therefore
no effort to identify to all concerned that the remedy required to make
them compliant was to purchase a Full Use Licence.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-30 02:56:38.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b8b6e6@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub> <48b2c98e@forums-1-dub> <48b2cf28@forums-1-dub> <48b33ef8@forums-1-dub> <48b36543$1@forums-1-dub> <48b3833b@forums-1-dub> <48b3f3be@forums-1-dub> <48b40751@forums-1-dub> <48b41f7e$1@forums-1-dub> <48b44aeb$1@forums-1-dub> <48b4c172@forums-1-dub> <48b57160$1@forums-1-dub> <48b5b923@forums-1-dub> <48b602dd@forums-1-dub> <48b62126@forums-1-dub> <48b6af69$1@forums-1-dub> <48b8b036@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEandIQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 29 Aug 2008 19:56:38 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1220064998 10.22.241.152 (29 Aug 2008 19:56:38 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 29 Aug 2008 19:56:38 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 33
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:2016
Article PK: 97617


> On 2008-08-30 12:28:06 +1000, Derek Asirvadem
> <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom> said:
>
> 3 Where the cust wants full and unrestricted access to their database
> (not just the data), and this is common with the major banks here, we
> simply sell them a Full Use licence under our BSA/VAR Schedule, and
> supply the app separately without Sybase embedded and without paying
> Sybase a royalty. No big deal. Cust pays for what they want, Sybase
> gets a full licence fee, and we get our VAR commission.

This may be important for some of you. In IT/Software delivery terms,
there is no difference in the OEM vs VAR delivery we make onto the cust
machine. The difference is in the licence, in legal terms, and
restricts what the cust can do, with what we have delivered.

We already have a "tight" security model, most of our custs are banks,
so there is no change to that.

What we do, to maintain our OEM contractual obligations with Sybase is,
we turn off the ability for the cust to make DDL changes. The purpose
here is legal, the implementation is of course pure permissions in the
server/database. In order for the cust to now exceed the OEM licence,
they have to perform a conscious act, not an accidental or innocent
act; which is indisputable; and which evidences the grounds upon which
a Full Use licence is legally required.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability


Jeff Tallman Posted on 2008-08-25 14:36:28.0Z
From: Jeff Tallman <jeff.tallman@sybase.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASEand IQ
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub> <48ab84f0$1@forums-1-dub> <48ada18b@forums-1-dub> <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub>
In-Reply-To: <48b1da57$1@forums-1-dub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <48b2c36c@forums-1-dub>
Date: 25 Aug 2008 07:36:28 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219674988 10.22.241.152 (25 Aug 2008 07:36:28 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 25 Aug 2008 07:36:28 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 70
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1993
Article PK: 97600

While true, there are semantic differences.....the embedded ASE
component in the early days of IQ was there for primarily the catalog
store and proc execution - and an interesting twist on local data that
likely has some applicability today. ASA as an embedded db for a
catalog store is much less labor intensive from an admin standpoint, so
it made sense to transition to it.

Like you mentioned, it would be a complete re-write. Just thinking
about it, it would certainly change even basics such as query
optimization (a primary factor is IO costing), cache management (due to
versioning)....and while arguably one could say an if/else clause could
separate the merged ASE/IQ code lines, the real issue is when joins
between tables using the different models and also how that lower level
aspects such as memory allocation would be managed (think IQ's main/temp
cache and buffer management for compression/decompression vs. ASE's proc
cache allocators for sorting, etc.)....

...while there IS a lot of attractiveness, the net result is a level of
effort that is just mind boggling....much much bigger than trying to
keep ASE/CE and ASE/SMP in sync (which would be another aspect due to
ASE/CE's shared disk and IQ Multiplex's hybrid clustering approach).....

...as with anything of that large of an effort, the subsequent questions
always are:

1 - Can the expense of such an effort be justified from projected revenues?

2 - Can the timeframe of such an effort be justified vis-a-vis probable
product impacts as other functionality may slip appreciably while this
effort is underway for multiple years?

3 - Will such an effort endanger the performance or stability of the two
individual products due the longer code path, different responses to
exeptions/signal processing, etc.?

4 - Is there an alternative approach that provides the desired
capability but doesn't require the impact to product future?

Currently, the thinking is #4 - hence some of the proposed changes to IQ
to shift it more towards an OLAP/DSS engine vs. just DSS.

Jason L. Froebe [TeamSybase] wrote:
> Hi Mich,
>
> Trying to get to the meat of the request. Essentially your requesting
> that Sybase merge ASE and IQ into a single product in order to compete
> with Oracle.
>
> A little bit of historical information for those people that may not
> remember: IQ used to contain an embedded ASE DBMS, in the same manner
> as IQ today contains an embedded SQL Anywhere DBMS.
>
> IIRC, remembering back a few years, the move to put IQ on top of SQL
> Anywhere was based on SQL Anywhere
>
> 1) being infinitely more embeddable than ASE due to its smaller code
> and cleaner design. ASE was never meant to be embedded and was going
> under major changes (remember ASE 11.5 -> 11.9.2) and it was going to
> become even further less embeddable.
> 2) SQL Anywhere was orders of magnitude faster for being the underlying
> storage component than ASE.
>
> Again, this is my memory of what the reasoning was.
>
> I can see the appeal of merging the IQ data warehouse *features* into
> ASE but it isn't really practical as it would probably require a
> complete rewrite of ASE. As the Powerbuilder folk can attest to,
> rewrites are often painful to endure.
>


Derek Asirvadem Posted on 2008-08-25 12:49:27.0Z
From: Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem@gmailDOTcom>
Organization: Software Gems Pty Ltd
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion
Message-ID: <48b2aa55@forums-1-dub>
References: <48a5626e@forums-1-dub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: The Oracle DBMS is a *legacy technology*, bring in hybrid ASE and IQ
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.7
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Date: 25 Aug 2008 05:49:27 -0700
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1219668567 10.22.241.152 (25 Aug 2008 05:49:27 -0700)
X-Original-Trace: 25 Aug 2008 05:49:27 -0700, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 56
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.product_futures_discussion:1992
Article PK: 97594

Welcome to the Big Pond.

> There is a convincing argument these days to classify Oracle's approach
> to handling both OLTP and OLAP type load as fundamentally flawed.

I tried the links but they go to spam. Where is the "convincing argument" ?

> Things have moved on since then. Today's systems and users deal far
> greater with non transactional (read) activity than with transactional
> (write/update) activity.

Yeah, well, just like Jeff, I recall that in another news group, very
recently, you denigrated the notion of improving the performance of
ASE, particularly in the area of large reads. While some may wish to
do nothing and change nothing to organise and manage their data, but
instead to hammer the vendor to improve performance; there are others
who use the facilities of ASE as documented (which is within their
control) to improve the performance (particularly reads) in the data
they created and poured into ASE.

Before hammering on Sybase Engineering to change their read performance
(or match tick-box stride with Oracle), it may be a good idea to ensure
that reads (on your particular box, your particular database) are
performing at the speed that ASE is capable of on that particular box,
that particular database. If you are using one default segment for 500
tables, 500gb, which guarantees fragmentation at the database level
(which presents as very little APF/Large I/O Pool use), and you are
stressing neither the hardware nor ASE (both are meandering their way
through your heap), you will not get much out of IQ or an ASE-IQ
"hybrid".

To be clear, those people who do not read the manuals and do not use
the ordinary facilities of ASE are not going to read the mauals and use
the ordinary facilities of IQ or ASE-IQ: they will force their
unnormalised heap into one device, and complain about "performance".

It was only a couple of years ago that I implemented a full project for
a new ASE database; the cust had licence for ASE and IQ in the budget;
unfortunately (I wanted to increase my IQ experience) ASE reads were so
fast that they did not purchase IQ. Of course, I read manuals, perform
benchmarks, and construct my own conclusions, and I do not have a long
list of really good reasons why I do not use the ordinary facilities of
ASE that the cust has paid for. It is not rocket science. That was
one big fat OLAP layer (via a Bus Objects Universe) on top of a true
OLTP database, which did not justify further licence expense.

BTW Next time, I will avoid BO. The universe was dead simple BECAUSE
the data was truly normalised, and therefore it can be eliminated.
--
Cheers
Derek
Senior Sybase DBA / Information Architect
Copyright © 2008 Software Gems Pty Ltd
Quality Standards = Zero Maintenance + Zero Surprises
Performance Standards = Predictability + Scaleability