Talk:List of relational database management systems

message: I was wondering where the definition of a truly Relational Database Management System was? --Doc0tis 21:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be on Relational Database Management Systems (under Current Usage) but I think a comment at the top of List of truly relational database management systems would be valuable. Personally, I think the distinction is sufficiently small that that page should really be a section on this one rather than a separate page with no explanation of the distinction JohnGray 13:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Truly Relational DBMS's

message: The current 'list of truly RDBMSes' is a joke, and a stub at best. E.g.: Why is it that Oracle 10g is categorized as a truly relational RDBMS. And how do we know for sure that Dataphor really implements all Codd's (12?) rules for truly relational DBMSes? I suggest that the list of "truly relationa RDBMSes" be removed. TroelsArvin 19:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; in my opinion you can just go ahead and do it. If you think it's controversial you could AfD it, but as far as I can see nobody has ever expressed support for the original fork. --Craig Stuntz 14:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like Oracle 10g has already been removed from that list. I think keeping them seperate is probably a good idea, as some people truly seem to get upset about the distinction between the two. But if you want to try and merge those in, I'm not opposed. Either way, let's get that ugly merge notice off the top of the page. Turnstep 16:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge? - Yes!

message: Why is Oracle RDB listed under Historical databases?<BR>
It is still being developed by Oracle and is used by quite a few different sites.  EAA 00:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical 

message: I would like to add the article for Gladius DB, I have made a draft User:Legolas558/Gladius_DB. Considering that I am the author I would first like to hear community's opinion. I do not know if the database is enough widespread but it currently hits better than any other flatfile db on sourceforge.
--Legolas558 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a concern that it seems to be pre-release (v. 0.5), at least judging from the SourceForge page. --Craig Stuntz 03:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No...it has recently exited its beta stage, now it is very stable. It is not yet v1.0 because some parts are unfinished but it is already much better than TxtSQL --Legolas558 10:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  any chance it can be added now? It is ranking much better than TxtSQL (2782 vs 12250, see  vs ) the User:legolas558/Gladius DB should be moved into Gladius DB --Legolas558 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Gladius DB (?) 

message: I would like to see R:BASE added to the lists and appropriate comparisons.
I have been using R:BASE since 1983 and have found it to be a very friendly, powerful, and useful product.
Wbrake 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  R:BASE 

message: What's the specific reason for the cleanup tag? -- Mikeblas 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup? 

message: It would be helpful to specify the exact inclusion criteria for "historical" entries as opposed to main list entries (maybe in a hidden note), as there have been occasional overlaps with the main list and unclear situations for some DBMS in the past. Is "Historical" meant as "out of development", or "out of maintenance", or "out of common usage", or whatever other definition is occasionally used for that distinction? I have no horse in that race either way, just to clarify current and future handling of such cases a bit more.GermanJoe (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical (II)?