![Databases Databases](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/database_64.png)
![Programming Programming](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/programming_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![IT IT](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/it_64.png)
![Linux Linux](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/linux_64.png)
Ubuntu Certified for IBM DB2 79
xsspd2004 writes "Ubuntu Certified for IBM DB2 -- Ubuntu is moving into Enterprise computing with IBM's certification of Ubuntu as "Ready for IBM DB2 Software for Linux". "
I have a very small mind and must live with it. -- E. Dijkstra
Dupe (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dupe (Score:1)
First the articles are late.. (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:First the articles are late.. (Score:3, Funny)
Dupe! [slashdot.org] Ready pitchforks!!!
Re:First the articles are late.. (Score:1)
I first thought that was why there were no articles: Someone actually filtered out the dupes. :-P
x86 only (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:x86 only (Score:3, Insightful)
While desktop use is grealy different from server use, it does stand to show what the situation is like ATM. If the 64 bit version of Breezy came with full support for 32 bit packages then all would be OK, but for some reason one has to set up the compability manually, and how to do that is far from obvious.
I wouldn't be surpised if some dev decid
Two reasons you would use DB2 on Linux (Score:5, Informative)
One good reason to use DB2 is that neither MySQL nor PostgreSQL can scale to the same size of database as DB2. Using DB2's "Distributed Partitioning Facility", or DPF, with DB2 Enterprise Server Edition [ibm.com] you can partition data over hundreds of machines using a shared-nothing approach. This means you can create a data warehouse of a hundred terabytes that 1) appears to your applications as just a single database 2) retrieves query results blazing fast (this is the "shared nothing" part; each machine knows what data it is responsible for, so a query that comes in to the database is automatically distributed to the responsble machines, which go off and do their work, then return the results to a single co-ordinator that pipes them back to the application -- it's like RAID-0 for databases).
It's certainly possible to create a multi-terabyte database using MySQL or PostgreSQL -- but you're going to be waiting way the hell longer to get a result back from your queries.
Reason 2: You get support from IBM. IBM lives and dies by its enterprise level support -- 24x7 customer service around the world. Sure, you can purchase support from MySQL AB or from some PostgreSQL shop, but it's not going to approach the level of service that you'll get from IBM. In fact, to get a level of support comparable to what IBM offers for DB2 Express [ibm.com] at $4874 for the first year and $1218/year for support after the first year, you would need to buy MySQL Network Gold for $2995/year. So after two years, going with DB2 Express will actually cost you less than half of what MySQL support will cost!
Re:Two reasons you would use DB2 on Linux (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Two reasons you would use DB2 on Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because your application requires DB2.
Because your company is DB2 site licenced.
Because your developers might be comfortable/familiar with DB2.
Because DB2 came bundled with some other software.
Because all your other servers are running DB2.
Because we live in a world where changing your OS no longer means changing your database vendor.
Because is is a seriously kick-arse fantastic database.
Because someone answers the phone (and usually has a solution) when you call with a database problem.
Because someone is paid paid to be accountable.
Because you're told to.
Because you like the product.
errr..... was I just trolled????
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Yes, we have a couple of clients running (small) sites backed by MySQL, but almost all of our larger DB-based sites use Oracle (one or two use MS SQL Server) running on Linux. Up until about 3 months ago, Linux/Oracle also powered our largest DB-based site. Now that title is going to Solaris/Oracle instead, but only because our hosting centre doesn
Well done! (Score:4, Interesting)
So I installed Ubuntu instead, and although I've updated both my kernel and Samba, my configuration is intact, and it runs perfectly. I'm running 5.10 (Breezy Badger), and so far I love it. It's quick, it's intuitive, it's user-friendly, it's FREE, and it's robust.
Only one problem... I can't get my nVidia card to install the GLX drivers. Not that I have EVER been able to do that under Linux on that box... but that's another story.
Ubuntu + samba + me = love.
Re:Well done! (Score:3, Interesting)
As for your problem:
I had no problem with the Nvidia GL drivers that came with (k)ubuntu. I've gone from SuSE 10 to (k)ubuntu for 3 weeks now, and I still haven't had any pressing issues that would make me go back to SuSE.
Perhaps, instead of usin
Re:Well done! (Score:2)
Hit submit too soon.
"It is _important_ that you follow directions and do this without running."
should be:
"It is _important_ that you follow directions and do this without running X."
--
BMO
Re:Well done! (Score:2)
Re:Well done! (Score:1)
Also, the highest resolution I can get is 1024*768 and things look way too clunky and *big* on my desktop. Any tips?
Re:Well done! (Score:1)
Re:Well done! (Score:1, Informative)
Anyway, apt-get install nvidia-glx nvidia-kernel-common nvidia-settings
then after all that, run sudo nvidia-glx-config
restart X. voila, things work fine for me.
Re:Well done! (Score:1)
SB:
sudo nvidia-glx-config enable
HTH
Re:Well done! (Score:3, Informative)
Only one problem... I can't get my nVidia card to install the GLX drivers. Not that I have EVER been able to do that under Linux on that box... but that's another story.
http://ubuntuguide.org/#installnvidiadriver/ [ubuntuguide.org]
I used those instructions to install Nvidia drivers for my laptop. Works great.
Re:Well done! (Score:2)
Example (Score:5, Funny)
Re:faster method? (Score:1)
Wow, twice? (Score:4, Funny)
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/09
Re:Wow, twice? (Score:1)
In any case, I'm sorry for causing the dupe.
Re:Wow, twice? (Score:1)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aslashd ot.org+db2+ubuntu&btnG=Goo [google.com]
Acrobat (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Acrobat (Score:1)
Re:Acrobat (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Acrobat (Score:1)
Re:Acrobat (Score:2)
DON'T DELETE THAT STUFF! (Score:2)
or was is optional to plug_ins? either way, just move the stuff, don't delete.
Re:Acrobat (Score:1)
Re:Acrobat (Score:1)
Re:Acrobat (Score:2)
better link - not a pdf (Score:5, Informative)
Where is Debian? (Score:2)
Ok, Ubuntu might be a peach to use on the desktop, but I won't give up on my STABLE Debian Servers.
Seriously, is it because there is no big enterprize behind Debian? I went to an Oracle presentation, and when we asked for Debian support they say that Debian doesn't have "official vendor support". Then I replied, "What do you mean? We're the support, we know our needs and we know our servers, there is no need here for vendor support!".
Debian has been a mature, rock-solid stable distr
Re:Where is Debian? (Score:1)
Debian just has too many "cooks" that "spoil the broth".
Re:Where is Debian? (Score:2)
Also, why not support Debian? It's an easy target... there are no frequent release cycle, there are no frequent compiler toolchain changes, no frequent libraries updates.
Debian should be easier to support than Ubuntu, with their 6 month release cycle, and constant binary compatibility breakage between releases!!
Re:Where is Debian? (Score:1)
And just becaue Ubuntu has a 6-month release cycle, there's nothing forcing one to upgrade every 6 months.
On a related note, I wonder if Debian will really truly abanodon it's recent *three year* "release cycle".
Re:Where is Debian? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm probably going to be moderated as Troll for saying this:
Debian is a very hard target to develop for. It's primarily a platform for nerds wanting to have it their own way. Yes, that's the fundamental freedom open source gives you. However, that also means there's a lot of diversity even in debian stable. There is no such thing as the debian. It's always 'debian with this-and-that choices made during installation and this-and-that changes to the default setup (yay, let's make two completely different in
Re:Where is Debian? (Score:2)
HTML Version (Score:2, Informative)
about the dupes....... (Score:1, Interesting)
What is ubuntu (Score:2)
Take the latest unbuntu - how much of it is 'added' to what it was before it was ubuntu (debian right?)
I am curious - all distro's should publish this in details, perhaps a standard format.
What made this dupe so special? (Score:1, Interesting)
Not to mention, this isn't just a dupe it's also old news [yahoo.com]
Meaning of Ubuntu (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Meaning of Ubuntu (Score:2)
so where's the sources.list entries? (Score:3, Insightful)
then i'll be impressed.
Re:so where's the sources.list entries? (Score:2)
Re:so where's the sources.list entries? (Score:2)