mgjones@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Mike (Felix) Jones) (06/08/91)
I am not that familiar with Databases outside of some of the ones for IBM PC's
but I have the following request:
I need any information that anyone might have on any Relational Databases
that:
1) Run on all or most of the following formats: (i.e., have a version for each)
DOS, UNIX, OS/2, WINDOWS
2) Can interface with Pascal, or at least C
This information is important so if anyone has any knowledge about this,
please fill me in. Please reply via e-mail to mgjones@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Thanks in advance.
- Mike
---
Mike Jones
mgjones@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
mgjones@miavx1.bitnet
an750@Cleveland.Freenet.edudhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) (06/10/91)
mgjones@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Mike (Felix) Jones) writes: > >I need any information that anyone might have on any Relational Databases >that: > >1) Run on all or most of the following formats: (i.e., have a version for each) > DOS, UNIX, OS/2, WINDOWS Ha! best you can hope for is "most". If you want the "same" program to run in all situations, dBase or Fox could work as DOS programs under OS/2 and Windows; or you could use dBFast undre Windows, or something else. In a year or two you might see parallel products for all four from several vendors, however. Current solution? Set up an SQL Server on an OS/2 Client/Server network and have your choice of SQL Clients on the terminals. > 2) Can interface with Pascal, or at least C FoxPro 2.0 -- WatCom C; Paradox -- Paradox Engine for C, for Pascal Clipper 5.0 -- C. Thos are the major produts. -- Daniel A. Hartung | "What's the difference anyway, between being dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us | safe and being rad, the joke's on us, we've Birch Grove Software | all been had." -- John Wesley Harding -----------FoxPro Programmer Looking For Work--------------
dlfrost@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun09.222112.10715@chinet.chi.il.us>, dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes: > mgjones@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Mike (Felix) Jones) writes: >> >>I need any information that anyone might have on any Relational Databases >>that: >> >>1) Run on all or most of the following formats: (i.e., have a version for each) >> DOS, UNIX, OS/2, WINDOWS > > Ha! best you can hope for is "most". If you want the "same" program to > run in all situations, dBase or Fox could work as DOS programs under OS/2 > and Windows; or you could use dBFast undre Windows, or something else. > Try Focus, it is a relational database that will run on a pc, mini, or a mainframe. The PC/FOCUS comes in DOS, OS/2, and LAN version. I know they have a UNIX version for mini computers but I am not sure if they have one for a pc unix version. Guru DLFROST@MIAVX1.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU DF0DSANU@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU D.FROST1 - genie Standard disclaimers - I thought no evil, I coded no evil, I ran no evil.
jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) (06/13/91)
In article <5400.285550fb@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> dlfrost@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes: >> <stuff deleted about needing a relational database on ALL systems > > Try Focus, it is a relational database that will run on a pc, mini, or a >mainframe. The PC/FOCUS comes in DOS, OS/2, and LAN version. I know they >have a UNIX version for mini computers but I am not sure if they have one >for a pc unix version. > Guru :-) Guru, are you really one? If so, how can you fall victim to the various marketing hype that calls FOCUS a relational database? (Donning asbestos suit in anticipation of all the FOCUS fans who are now pulling out their flamethrowers) Before you all start shooting flames my way, let me say that I spent 15 years of my career (before switching to DB2, Ingres, Oracle and Teradata, "real" relational databases in my book) devoted to supporting and consulting with users of FOCUS and its ancestor RAMIS. I am intimately familiar with both products, and its is quite clear that they are both fundamentally hierarchical/network databases, not relational databases. That is not to say that either can't be used in a "psuedo-relational" way... but the products are principally designed to support hierarchical file structures with links between associated files (nee pointers). This does not make them bad products... In fact, I think they are both extremely GOOD products... they have great application development environments and 4GLs... they are both very powerful and can be easy to use (at least until you start to move into the more esoteric areas)... However, neither product understands anything resembling a relational database query language such as QUEL or SQL... Their 4GL query languages are relatively unrigorous (albeit they both contain features that do much of what SQL does, in some cases more)... I do not intend this to degenerate into a discussion of whether FOCUS or RAMIS are "better" than DB2, et al... That argument could take years and Gigabits of bandwidth... In many ways, both products ARE better than comparable relational databases... But to call them relational databases (despite what their respective marketing departments would want you to believe) is stretching definitions beyond where they should be... PS - I would also argue that dBase II/III/IV (and its lookalikes) is not a relational database either and I have so argued for many years... Again, that doesn't make it bad, simply not relational... Jon Rosen
awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) (06/14/91)
Someone writes> > Someone else writes> > > I need a relational database for DOS, UNIX, OS/2 and Windows > > Ha-ha, not for a year. (New news program; I don't know how to get it to auto-include the original posting.) dBASE IV is implementing a broad cross-platform strategy to satisfy just this sort of requirement: One database across many environments. We are currently shipping on DOS, VMS, Macintosh and several flavors of Unix (such as SCO Xenix imminent if not already). Windows has been announced for year's end (I believe). These flavors of dBASE read each other's application object code (.dbo) without recompilation. I think product compatibility across platforms is going to be a significant factor to everyone eventually--apparently Ashton-Tate agrees with me and they are investing heavily now to get there first. The second poster ("Someone else," above) made the comment that other xBase vendors might have cross-platform products by next year. To which I answer, "Not if they're doing anything else right now," because this stuff is HARD. /alastair/ -- |Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesman for Ashton-Tate, |which does not monitor my outbursts here. I reserve all rights to my |opinions in terms of commercial endorsements.
tim@ohday.sybase.com (Tim Wood) (06/16/91)
In article <1991Jun13.182129.21197@dbase.a-t.com> awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) writes: >Someone writes> >> Someone else writes> >> > I need a relational database for DOS, UNIX, OS/2 and Windows >> >> Ha-ha, not for a year. > >dBASE IV is implementing a broad cross-platform strategy to satisfy just >this sort of requirement: One database across many environments. ... >I think product compatibility across platforms is going to be a >significant factor to everyone eventually--apparently Ashton-Tate >agrees with me and they are investing heavily now to get there first. >[ ... Portability is HARD ... ] First? Ha-ha again. Can you say "Oracle?" (Try "Sybase," or "Ingres," to name two others?) All these companies have long since committed to a multi-platform marketing strategy. Given their established advances in performance, reliability and programmability, AT is jumping into one hot fire taking on these companies. Now, O & I servers are not at their best on DOS. Sybase has IMO rightly not seen fit to build a DOS server; that's OK since DOS never was intended to be a server environment. All these companies have client solutions for DOS, and connect to servers running from OS/2 386's through minis to mainframe-class machines. AT may go from being bloodied to being bowed if it enters the server DBMS market. IMNSHO, it is several years behind in key technologies like OLTP, performance, and portability (in the absence of product evidence to the contrary.) You're right, portability IS hard. I doubt that AT can create a product competitive enough to keep dBase users from moving to an established server vendor when their needs reach that scale. If dBase 4.0 took so long to get right, how long will we have to wait for, or how many bugs will there be in your first version of a server that offers what Sybase, for one, has now and has had for years? Moreover, users won't have to abandom their dBase investment when moving to a server such as ours; they can just get our gateway to connect to dBase and make the transition at their convenience. -TW --- Sybase, Inc. / 6475 Christie Ave. / Emeryville, CA / 94608 415-596-3500 WORK:tim@sybase.com {pacbell,pyramid,sun,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!tim PLAY:axolotl!tim@toad.com {sun,uunet}!hoptoad!axolotl!tim Dis claim er dat claim, what's da difference? I'm da one doin da talkin' hea.
py@meadow.uucp (Peter Yeung) (06/19/91)
In article <25335@oolong.la.locus.com> jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) writes: >In article <5400.285550fb@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> dlfrost@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes: > > ... description of FOCUS deleted ... > I heard that in the mainframe world, some people use FOCUS as a front end for DBMS like DB2. What is the ticket? > > PS - I would also argue that dBase II/III/IV (and its lookalikes) > is not a relational database either and I have so argued for > many years... Again, that doesn't make it bad, simply not > relational... > Right on! It really irritates me when people saying that dBase ? is a relational database system - they don't even do auto indexing for you! > Jon Rosen -- Peter Yeung Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center 2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300 Mississauga, Ont. L5N 1V8 Phone: (416) 542-6300 Fax: (416) 858-2233
aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic) (06/22/91)
In article <1991Jun13.182129.21197@dbase.a-t.com> awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) writes: >dBASE IV is implementing a broad cross-platform strategy to satisfy just >this sort of requirement: One database across many environments. We >are currently shipping on DOS, VMS, Macintosh and several flavors of >Unix (such as SCO Xenix imminent if not already). Windows has been >announced for year's end (I believe). These flavors of dBASE read >each other's application object code (.dbo) without recompilation. >I think product compatibility across platforms is going to be a >significant factor to everyone eventually--apparently Ashton-Tate >agrees with me and they are investing heavily now to get there first. "Get there first"??? I think you're a tad too late. Informix-4GL has been pcode platform-compatible (between dozens of UNIX environments and DOS) for over two years. I suspect others of our competitors may have as well. >The second poster ("Someone else," above) made the comment that other >xBase vendors might have cross-platform products by next year. To >which I answer, "Not if they're doing anything else right now," >because this stuff is HARD. Not if portability is designed into the language in the first place... >/alastair/ -- Alan Denney aland@informix.com {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland "To be labeled as a jazz singer is limiting. I like to think of myself as one who has simply been infused with a lot of music." - Bobby McFerrin
louk@tslwat.UUCP (Lou Kates) (06/22/91)
In article <13316@sybase.sybase.com} tim@ohday.sybase.com (Tim Wood) writes: }In article <1991Jun13.182129.21197@dbase.a-t.com} awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) writes: }}Someone writes} }}} Ha-ha, not for a year. }}this sort of requirement: One database across many environments. ... }}I think product compatibility across platforms is going to be a }}significant factor to everyone eventually--apparently Ashton-Tate }First? Ha-ha again. Can you say "Oracle?" (Try "Sybase," or "Ingres," }to name two others?) All these companies have long since committed to a }multi-platform marketing strategy. I was under the impression that Sybase runs on MS-DOS LANs but not on single PCs while the recent PC Magazine's database issue indicates that Ingres' MS-DOS LAN does not even support locking on MS-DOS LANs. (I have not used these products so someone can correct me if I am mistaken.) If you want it to run on single PCs, MS-DOS LANs as well as OS/2, UNIX, VAX/VMS, etc. then the choices are really quite limited and if your requirements include referential integrity then, to my knowledge, there is no such portable package. Lou Kates, Teleride Sage Ltd., louk%tslwat@watmath.waterloo.edu
clh@tfic.bc.ca (Chris Hermansen) (06/25/91)
In article <5400.285550fb@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> dlfrost@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes: >In article <1991Jun09.222112.10715@chinet.chi.il.us>, dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes: >> mgjones@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Mike (Felix) Jones) writes: [ Someone wants a relational database for ] >>> >>> DOS, UNIX, OS/2, WINDOWS >> > Try Focus, it is a relational database that will run on a pc, mini, or a >mainframe. The PC/FOCUS comes in DOS, OS/2, and LAN version. I know they >have a UNIX version for mini computers but I am not sure if they have one >for a pc unix version. Hey! FOCUS is ***NOT*** a relational database, it's hierarchical. The PC, UNIX, and mainframe versions are ***NOT*** 100% compatible (for eg, the graphic characters that one can embed in screens to do color stuff on the PC do quite different things on the Sun... as one might well expect). I know from personal experience that Informix products run on DOS and UNIX, and that they advertise an OS/2 product. Don't know about Windows. I imagine that both Oracle and Ingres (and maybe Sybase?) have similar coverage. The point is that these are all real, relational systems that are based on SQL standards (more or less) and represent some kind of mainstream. From my experience with FOCUS, on the other hand, this product was designed to solve a problem on the mainframe and subsequently ported to PC and UNIX machines. It certainly wouldn't be my first choice of package in any situation not involving prior FOCUS use and mainframes, and it ISN'T RELATIONAL. Hope this helps. Chris Hermansen Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Voice: 1 604 733 0731 302 - 958 West 8th Avenue FAX: 1 604 733 0634 Vancouver B.C. CANADA clh@tfic.bc.ca V5Z 1E5 C'est ma facon de parler.
jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun24.193403.22337@tfic.bc.ca> clh@tacitus.UUCP (Chris Hermansen) writes: >In article <5400.285550fb@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> dlfrost@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes: >[ Someone wants a relational database for ] >> Try Focus, it is a relational database that will run on a pc, mini, or a >>mainframe. The PC/FOCUS comes in DOS, OS/2, and LAN version. I know they >>have a UNIX version for mini computers but I am not sure if they have one >>for a pc unix version. > >Hey! FOCUS is ***NOT*** a relational database, it's hierarchical. The Here here! I mentioned this in a previous post. Having worked with FOCUS and its forefather RAMIS, I can attest to the correctness of Chris's view. I spent almost 15 years working with both products on mainframes and their early editions on PCs. They are hierarchical databases with some very nice ways of linking various database files, and in fact, can be made to look reasonably psuedo-relational if you are careful. But they are not relational databases. Their query languages and report writers are VERY powerful (more so than SQL in a number of ways) but they are not based on any mathematical foundation like a relational database access language should be (no flames to me regarding SQL, I know it has its problems too). By the way, what FOCUS and RAMIS can both do is use their report writers to link to REAL relational databases such as DB2, OS/2 EE, Oracle, etc. Since both products also have very powerful 4GLs and application development tools, this is sometimes a good thing to consider (marrying a real RDBMS with a front-end 4GL-based product like FOCUS). Jon Rosen
sweeney@ingres.com (Tony Sweeney) (06/28/91)
In article <655@tslwat.UUCP> louk@tslwat.UUCP (Lou Kates) writes: >In article <13316@sybase.sybase.com} tim@ohday.sybase.com (Tim Wood) writes: >}In article <1991Jun13.182129.21197@dbase.a-t.com} awd@dbase.a-t.com (Alastair Dallas) writes: >}}Someone writes} >}}} Ha-ha, not for a year. >}}this sort of requirement: One database across many environments. ... >}}I think product compatibility across platforms is going to be a >}}significant factor to everyone eventually--apparently Ashton-Tate >}First? Ha-ha again. Can you say "Oracle?" (Try "Sybase," or "Ingres," >}to name two others?) All these companies have long since committed to a >}multi-platform marketing strategy. > >I was under the impression that Sybase runs on MS-DOS LANs but >not on single PCs while the recent PC Magazine's database issue >indicates that Ingres' MS-DOS LAN does not even support locking ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >on MS-DOS LANs. (I have not used these products so someone can >correct me if I am mistaken.) If you want it to run on single >PCs, MS-DOS LANs as well as OS/2, UNIX, VAX/VMS, etc. then the >choices are really quite limited and if your requirements include >referential integrity then, to my knowledge, there is no such >portable package. > >Lou Kates, Teleride Sage Ltd., louk%tslwat@watmath.waterloo.edu I'd like make clear what Ingres does and doesn't do, since the above statement is at best misleading. Ingres has essentially two product families for MS-DOS; Release 5, which offers a stand-alone database, and Release 6, which proves a client only front end to a server machine via Ingres/Net. Release 5 "knows" that it is running on a single processor, has one thread of control, and therefore doesn't need to use locks on the data. If you have, however, a netware or novell server, it would be possible to have several PCs attempt to share a single ingres installation - this would be doomed to failure due to the absence of locking. Additionally, the cacheing done by most PC lan servers would compromise data integrity, as when Ingres writes a page to a file it assumes it has made its way to disk. It is possible to share a single copy of Ingres (R5 or R6) executables on a PC lan, but the (R5) data must be stored on a local disk. Tech support should be able to tell you how to set this up. In Release 6, this is not an issue, since the server on the target host, whether OS/2, Unix or VMS handles all the locking issues. Comms protocols supported include netbios, SPX/IPX, Decnet (PCSA), and various flavours of TCP. Other PC lan protocols are in the pipeline. In short then, the original statement is true for the Ingres Release 5 standalone database, but irrelevant and thus misleading for Release 6. Tony. Disclaimer: none of the above is an official statement by Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, but to the best of my knowledge it's all true :-)