Mark Townsend, Oracle Product Manager, on posting in DB2 newsgroup

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Mark A - 13 Feb 2005 20:32 GMT

Here is Mark Townsend's (Oracle Product Manager) explanation and
justification for posting in the DB2 newsgroup, as posted on the Oracle
newsgroup, and my response:

"Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend@comcast.net> wrote in message

> By an large you will find that they [posts in the DB2 newsgroup]
> all fall into 1 of 3 categorires.
>
> 1) Explaining how Oracle does something when somebody asks how to do the
> equivalent in DB2, and any answer given seems to be based on a bad
> understanding of what Oracle actually does.
> 2) Correct/challenge any misconceptions/misinformation/negative
> positioning about Oracle expressed in the DB2 ng.
> 3) There are also a few facetious tongue-in-cheek comments that are
> clearly identified as such.
>
> Mark A- by all means, feel free to do the same here, with the same degree
> of rigor.

Tongue and cheek? Your latest diatribe in the DB2 newsgroup is that the
scripts used to set up and run the TPC-C benchmarks are longer for DB2 than
Oracle. Didn't sound tongue in cheek to me, although it was a rather
ridiculous and irrelevant comparison.

But I would really like to know, what is the justification of #1). If an
Oracle DBA is now working on DB2 and doesn't know much about DB2, but wants
to do something in DB2 that he/she used to do in Oracle, then they will ask
on the DB2 newsgroup: "How do I do xxxxxxxxx in DB2?" where xxxxxxx is some
command or feature in Oracle.

No one asked how to do it Oracle or whether it is easier to do it in Oracle,
or whether Oracle is better than DB2. They just want to know how to do it in
DB2.

There is no justification for you posting how it is done in Oracle, and/or
whether it is easier done in Oracle, on the DB2 newsgroup in such
circumstances, other than pure spamming. I suppose that since you are the
Oracle Product Manager, you think that is your job, but I think most of
DBA's who post on the Oracle and DB2 newsgroups would rather you take your
marketing elsewhere.

Reply to this Message

Mark Townsend - 13 Feb 2005 21:32 GMT

A nice peice of subterfuge. Actually, what I posted was in response to
this thread http://tinyurl.com/5njeg in which Mark A was asked why _he_
was posting in the Oracle newsgroup. So the argument has got a little
bit circular.

Anyhow, Mark - the long and short of it is that I will continue to keep
posting on both newsgroups, as is my wont. Nothing you can do can and
will stop me from doing this. Where I think it's appropriate, I will
continue to point out the differences between Oracle and DB2, in any
situation where I feel that it's warranted.

Anybody is free to take offense at whatever I post. If they think it
reflects badly on Oracle, then so be it. I am very clear about who I
work for, what my bias are and am prepared to stand by whatever I say.

Reply to this Message

Mark A - 13 Feb 2005 21:42 GMT

> A nice peice of subterfuge. Actually, what I posted was in response to
> this thread http://tinyurl.com/5njeg in which Mark A was asked why _he_
> was posting in the Oracle newsgroup. So the argument has got a little
> bit circular.

I don't understand the "subterfuge" part. I clearly said you posted it in
the Oracle newsgroup.

There is nothing circular about it. In response to those who asked me why I
posted information about DB2 in the Oracle group, I said I was just doing
the exact same thing that Mark Townsend and Daniel Morgan do here in the DB2
newsgroup.

Reply to this Message

Darin McBride - 14 Feb 2005 21:15 GMT

> Here is Mark Townsend's (Oracle Product Manager) explanation and
> justification for posting in the DB2 newsgroup, as posted on the Oracle
> newsgroup, and my response:

(I doubt by now anyone has any doubts as to who I work for...)

> "Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> than Oracle. Didn't sound tongue in cheek to me, although it was a rather
> ridiculous and irrelevant comparison.

I must have missed that one.

> But I would really like to know, what is the justification of #1). If an
> Oracle DBA is now working on DB2 and doesn't know much about DB2, but
> wants to do something in DB2 that he/she used to do in Oracle, then they
> will ask on the DB2 newsgroup: "How do I do xxxxxxxxx in DB2?" where
> xxxxxxx is some command or feature in Oracle.

That's not how I read #1. I read it as:

FormerOracleUser:
"Hey, I want to do xxxxxxxx in DB2. How do I do that?"

DB2Zealot:
"Ok, to do yyyyyyyy, just type xyzxyzxyz."

MarkT:
"Woah. That's not how Oracle works, so FormerOracleUser's question
has not been answered."

I think this is great - MarkT is helping DB2 users convert Oracle users
to DB2 by ensuring that we can get those Oracle users to do what they
want to do ... on DB2. Otherwise, we'd get:

FormerOracleUser:
"Damn - that didn't work. Ok, back to Oracle we go!"

Instead, we get:

DB2Zealot:
"Oh, ok, I see. Well, to do that, then, you type xyzabcabc."

FormerOracleUser:
"Great, it works! Thanks all!"

> No one asked how to do it Oracle or whether it is easier to do it in
> Oracle, or whether Oracle is better than DB2. They just want to know how
> to do it in DB2.

The problem MarkT poses is that sometimes the DB2Zealot may not realise
what the Oracle functionality really is. I wonder if he's being paid
by IBM to properly educate us... :-)

> There is no justification for you posting how it is done in Oracle, and/or
> whether it is easier done in Oracle, on the DB2 newsgroup in such
> circumstances, other than pure spamming. I suppose that since you are the
> Oracle Product Manager, you think that is your job, but I think most of
> DBA's who post on the Oracle and DB2 newsgroups would rather you take your
> marketing elsewhere.

On behalf of many of the rest of us, obviously not including Mark A,
I'd like to thank MarkT in his tireless effort to help DB2. :-)

Reply to this Message

Mark A - 14 Feb 2005 21:42 GMT

"Darin McBride" <dmcbride@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message
news:%x8Qd.390341>

> That's not how I read #1. I read it as:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> "Woah. That's not how Oracle works, so FormerOracleUser's question
> has not been answered."

You need to re-read the thread in question.

Larry responded to the Original Poster, that Federated support was required
for Oracle DBLinks functionality. The original post was clearly answered.

Another person (not the original poster) named WantedToBeDBA asked a
subsequent question later in that thread that did not mention DB2 Federated
Support (and did not clearly mention Oracle DBLinks), but merely asked how
one connect to a database on a remote machine form a local machine. Here is
the exact quote:

"Can you guys help me establishing db link between these 2 system. I want to
access machine 2 from machine 1."

I did not interpret this as a requirement for Federated support (or the
equivalent of Oracle DBlinks), rather I thought he just wanted to connect to
a remote database on machine 2 from machine 1. Obviously, I could have been
mistaken (we still do not know). It would have been more clear (assuming he
needs Federated Support) if had just asked for instructions for configuring
DB2 Federated support instead of the ambiguous quote above (by the time he
posted, he knew that the equivalent of Oracle DBlinks was DB2 Federated
support).

In any event. the information I provided is necessary as the first step,
even if additional Federated support configuration is needed.

The suggestion by Mark Townsend that I was trying to deceive people into
thinking that DB2 Federated support is easier to configure than it really
is, or that I was making any comparison between DB2 Federated support and
Oracle DBLinks, is ridiculous.

Reply to this Message

Darin McBride - 15 Feb 2005 01:59 GMT

> "Darin McBride" <dmcbride@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message
> news:%x8Qd.390341>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> You need to re-read the thread in question.

No, first I need to read the thread in question. As an aside, I'm not
entirely sure what the question is - I'm just assuming that what you
wrote was the question, with my own personal biases filling in the
unclear parts. Which really is little different than the thread I
assume you're treating as "in question."

MarkT's original note that you quoted from cdo:

> 1) Explaining how Oracle does something when somebody asks how to do the
> equivalent in DB2, and any answer given seems to be based on a bad
> understanding of what Oracle actually does.

And you've quoted my interpretation of it. Since your original note
was talking about TPC stuff (which I don't pay attention to, especially
now that I cannot partake of the free cake every time a new TPC
"record" is published), I said that I must have missed that thread so
you'd know I was not reading MarkT's post in that context. Maybe I'm
naively optimistic about peoples' motives. Or maybe you've been jaded.
More likely is that our respective backgrounds colour our
interpretations of what we see and read in the world around us, so we
can come to wildly different conclusions.

I've now gone back and read about 1/3rd of the DB Links thread. It has
managed to veer wildly off-topic, so I think I've read enough of it.

> Larry responded to the Original Poster, that Federated support was
> required for Oracle DBLinks functionality. The original post was clearly
> answered.

Quite. And MarkT did not complain at this point.

> Another person (not the original poster) named WantedToBeDBA asked a
> subsequent question later in that thread that did not mention DB2
> Federated Support (and did not clearly mention Oracle DBLinks), but merely
> asked how one connect to a database on a remote machine form a local
> machine. Here is the exact quote:

Did not clearly mention DB Links .. and that, Mark, is what I think is
the crux of the situation. It also did not clearly eliminate DB Links
as the topic of the question (being posted with a subject mentioning
it). You looked at the question and thought that the subject made no
sense. Being a participant in many non-DB2 forums (newsgroups and
otherwise), I can recognise this situation in those fields and be able
to respond with a similar answer: "You're asking the wrong question.
Here is what you are really looking for." However, I can also
recognise how significant portions of the technical population don't
recognise this situation, or may not recognise it the same times I do,
and so I have a hard time begrudging them from their interpretation.
(And I've noticed that they're more right than I about the original
question at least 20% of the time.) Of course, those venues often have
people talking from the same side of the coin - you don't get a lot of
anti-perl people chatting on perlmonks.org!

> "Can you guys help me establishing db link between these 2 system. I want
> to access machine 2 from machine 1."

If I had regular experience with DB Links, the product, I could easily
see the question as a federation question. Just as if I could stomach
looking in cdo and saw a question talking about query management, I
would think Query Patroller. I don't think that alternate viewpoints
on this question, as vague as it is, is a bad thing.

> I did not interpret this as a requirement for Federated support (or the
> equivalent of Oracle DBlinks), rather I thought he just wanted to connect
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> (by the time he posted, he knew that the equivalent of Oracle DBlinks was
> DB2 Federated support).

You have a different background from MarkT, so you look at the question
differently. Again, I see no problem here.

> In any event. the information I provided is necessary as the first step,
> even if additional Federated support configuration is needed.

> The suggestion by Mark Townsend that I was trying to deceive people into
> thinking that DB2 Federated support is easier to configure than it really
> is, or that I was making any comparison between DB2 Federated support and
> Oracle DBLinks, is ridiculous.

I had a hard time seeing that from the portion of the thread I have
read. Maybe that's my naive optimism coming into play again. What I
see is that MarkT thinks in Oracle terms (wow, what a revelation). And
that he's inexperienced in DB2 Federation (I know, I know - I'm
stretching here). So, taking these two leaps of faith results in
pretty much the text I've seen from MarkT.

I dunno ... it doesn't seem like some grand conspiracy to confuse and
confound DB2 users. It actually seems more like MarkT is trying to
help Oracle users (whether that's to stay with Oracle or make the move
to DB2 is not always clear), and to educate himself on the competition
(by asking what steps are required to set up DB2 Federation - treat
that as yet a third thread under the same subject...).

Of course, I could be off, too. But I do think that my explanation is
the simpler one, and I definitely prefer the simple explanations over
the complex explanations...

Reply to this Message

Larry - 15 Feb 2005 02:27 GMT

>>"Darin McBride" <dmcbride@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message
>>news:%x8Qd.390341>
[quoted text clipped - 108 lines]
> (by asking what steps are required to set up DB2 Federation - treat
> that as yet a third thread under the same subject...).

Darin ... with all respect, I've really gotta take issue with this. I've
already told Mark T. that I have no objection to using this NG as an
education tool for anyone including him. But to think that he's hanging
out here looking to be educated on how DB2 does things in order to help
Oracle users is like saying that a crocodile is waiting with it's eyes
peering above the surface of the Nile River in order to help the
Wildebeast. If that were the case, he would have cross-posted these
responses to the comp.oracle NGs.

I really think you ought to review the entire thread and look for Mark
T.'s editorial comments and you will see what I mean. It's very very
obvious why these comments were made in the manner that they were made.

Now ... the bottom line is that these are public internet NGs and there
really isn't anything much we can do about people who choose to trash
DB2. What bothers me is that we all know that there are drawbacks and
flaws in every product including Oracle, but I don't go hanging around
Oracle NGs waiting for every opportunity to point them out.

> Of course, I could be off, too. But I do think that my explanation is
> the simpler one, and I definitely prefer the simple explanations over
> the complex explanations...

Reply to this Message

Larry - 15 Feb 2005 13:46 GMT

OK ... I'm calling a truce and withdrawing from this thread.

It has been pointed out to me that my remarks may not have been
respectful to Mark T. Although I really do think it was necessary to
state that side of the case, I did not mean to be disrespectful to Mark
T. Although he makes no bones about who he supports and works for, he
has certainly been respectful to the NG and to IBM in the manner in
which he posts. So Mark ... I apologize.

Larry E.

>>> "Darin McBride" <dmcbride@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message
>>> news:%x8Qd.390341>
[quoted text clipped - 139 lines]
>> the simpler one, and I definitely prefer the simple explanations over
>> the complex explanations...

Reply to this Message

Mark Townsend - 15 Feb 2005 15:29 GMT

> OK ... I'm calling a truce and withdrawing from this thread.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Larry E.

Larry - thanks for the apology, but seriously, you really have nothing
to apologise for. I didn't think you were showing any disrespect, and
even if you were, well then that's OK as well, as I'm pretty thick skinned.

But I do appreciate the professionalism in your gesture, given in the
spirit of reconciliation and mutual respect, and I would like to comment
that such professionalism is a common trait amongst _all_ the IBM
denizens on this newsgroup, which I, for one, and I'm sure the greater
community, greatly appreciate.

Reply to this Message

Mark A - 15 Feb 2005 02:32 GMT

"Darin McBride" <dmcbride@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message
news:9IcQd.392233

> snip
> If I had regular experience with DB Links, the product, I could easily
> see the question as a federation question.
> snip

I don't have any experience with DB Links. Since Larry already posted in
that thread that the equivalent of Oracle DB Links is DB2 Federated Support,
I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that if the other poster (not the original
poster) wanted to know how to configure DB2 Federated Support, he would have
said so.

> snip
> I dunno ... it doesn't seem like some grand conspiracy to confuse and
> confound DB2 users.
> snip

I never said that Mark T is trying confuse and confound DB2 users . I said
that Mark T accused me of trying to confuse people into believing that DB2
Federated Support is easier to configure than Oracle DB Links, by purposely
not including all the steps necessary to set up DB2 Federated Support. I
said that is preposterous.

Since you admitted that you have not read more than 1/3 of the thread, this
discussion is probably an exercise in futility for both of us.

Reply to this Message

Knut Stolze - 15 Feb 2005 07:42 GMT

> Another person (not the original poster) named WantedToBeDBA asked a
> subsequent question later in that thread that did not mention DB2
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> "Can you guys help me establishing db link between these 2 system. I want

^^^^^^^

> to access machine 2 from machine 1."

Mark A, I think that's pretty clear, especially in the context of this
thread. And I'm sure you noticed the style of "WantedToBeDBA"'s posts in
the past. So you know that the questions are sometimes not exactly to the
point but rather try to describe the issue - is is the case by vary many
others who do not yet know the solution to their problems.

> It would have been more clear
> (assuming he needs Federated Support) if had just asked for instructions
> for configuring DB2 Federated support instead of the ambiguous quote above
> (by the time he posted, he knew that the equivalent of Oracle DBlinks was
> DB2 Federated support).

That would assume that he/she already knew exactly that he/she needs
federated capabilities, or that DB2 (and the SQL standard) calls this
"federation".

Personally, I think that Mark T. (despite his sporadic advocacy efforts :-))
is good for this newsgroup because he helps to understand some of the
questions asked here. You know who he works for, so you have to read his
posts with a grain of salt and keep that information in mind. Just take it
easy.

Signature

Knut Stolze
Information Integration
IBM Germany / University of Jena

Reply to this Message

Mark A - 15 Feb 2005 19:53 GMT

> > "Can you guys help me establishing db link between these 2 system. I want
> ^^^^^^^
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> point but rather try to describe the issue - is is the case by vary many
> others who do not yet know the solution to their problems.

No, I did not recall his "style." So I didn't know his "questions are
sometimes not exactly to the point."

Do you think if knew what he really meant, that I would have intentionally
responded the way I did?

> > It would have been more clear
> > (assuming he needs Federated Support) if had just asked for instructions
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> federated capabilities, or that DB2 (and the SQL standard) calls this
> "federation".

Larry already repsonded to the original post that Federeted Support was
necessary. This was the second post in the thread. How could WantedToBeDBA
not know?

> Personally, I think that Mark T. (despite his sporadic advocacy efforts
:-))
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Information Integration
> IBM Germany / University of Jena

I have no objection to anyone posting here. But I don't think everyone knows
that Mark Townsend is the Oracle Product Manager, just like not everyone can
recall the "style" of WantedToBeDBA. If everyone knew what you knew, no one
would post here.

I do strenuously object to when Mark T says I tried to deceive people into
believing that DB2 Federated support is easier to configure than it really
is. That is what Mark T claimed about me, and it is ridiculous and rather
petty.

Reply to this Message