473,883 Members | 1,708 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

database market share 2003

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_...etshare_1.html

Interesting to see that database sales for windows is more than
Unix.
Nov 12 '05
346 16707
Neil Truby allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 7:43 PM:



Have you tried increasing the BUFFERS parameter to improve the cache rate?


LOL!

I like big "buffers",
no one can deny!

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo .com.au.nospam
Nov 12 '05 #121
Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 8:18 PM:

on that platform. So on the platforms that Oracle and DB2 compete (UNIX,
Linux, and Windows, DB2 does have one code base.


and funnily enough, Oracle is streets ahead in PRECISELY those platforms
with Microsoft catching up faster than anyone else.
UDB? How do you spell that? Some 35% INDEED...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo .com.au.nospam
Nov 12 '05 #122
Noons wrote:
Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 4/06/2004 11:02 AM:
Well, Blair commented on the language, so I shall refrain from that.

Stop posting stupid and idiotic replies (not you!) and it will stop.
Until then, you get it back in whatever fashion I deem appropriate,
and there is preciously nothing anyone can do about it.
Sorry, but that's the way it goes when someone tries to insult
everyone's intelligence.

I think it' simportant in a medium such as this to be carefully
acknowledging that the means of communication channels are very limited.
That's why debates such as this fail to throttle themselves as they
would face to face. Now, we are all mature, professional unlike the poor
kids in this news story below.. Just a thought for reflection.
http://sify.com/news/offbeat/fullstory.php?id=13489840
Can we at least try to be better?
Either way: IBM does NOT know how many customers use which parts of
the i/Series's operation system.

Good. Can I quote that WIDELY as a truth finally admitted?
Just like the "same code base everywhere" three years ago that turned
out to be "only here and there" after the derision got too loud?

I'm not an IBM spokes person. The interesting part is that you ask IBM
to admit not to know something that they, to the best of my knowledge,
never _claimed_ to know.
It is a bit like me going out there and asking Mark Townsend to _admit_
that RDB licenses are counted under Oracle's marketshare. Well, I
presume they are, and matter of fact, I don't have an issue with it
because RDB is a relational DBMS and that's what IDC and Gartner decided
to count.
What you refer to as DB2 is a surpringly small SQL interface to OS/400.

I don't get this: Is it small in user base? Or small in code size?
Complexity? Or irrelevant to this discussion (as it should have remained)?

Small code size. The point I wanted to make is that the decision what is
DB2 and what is OS/400 seems rather arbitrary looking in from the
outside. IBM could for all intents and purposes declare that DB2 for
i/Series IS the operation system and provides a file-system interface.
the name OS/400 would disappear and that would be that. You would simply
have to deal with it :-)
> Customers choose to work with OS/400 filesystem or the SQL interface.


Yes. Therefore and until IBM knows precisely who is using what,
it is pointless, stupid and inaccurate to claim that ALL AS400 licenses
are DB2/UDB licenses (implied as being used as such).
etc. i/Series is a DBMS with a capital S for SYSTEM. It is what
Microsoft wants to have. One big "magic box" (remember the commercial?).

Serge, Serge, Serge: I KNOW what it is. When it came out, it was
a BIG step ahead in all this OS rubbish. And lauded as such, and the
customer base responded accordingly by making the AS400 the most
successful IBM platform EVER! Long before DB2 existed anywhere else other
than as SQL/DS.

OK, so AS/400 had DBMS marketshare numbers long before DB2 UDB came out.
Should these customers ,old and new depending on what you count, now
suddenly just fall off because they didn't have a sexy DBMS name for
what they were doing?
What it NEVER was, is NOT and NEVER will be is DB2, or UDB!
No matter how many times the deranged IBM marketing decides to
change its name. Ah.. now we are ot the crux of the matter.
We refer to DB2 as a "Family of Products". Just like other vendors have
multiple products under the same product line, so does IBM.
E.g. where are the DBMS's for mobile devises logged? They are RDBMS and
they carry the name Sybase, Oracle and DB2 with them, yet in no case are
they the same codebase as the server based product. If it were for the
DBSM vendors these DBMS ought to power your Nokia cell phone making each
cell phone sale a DBMS sale (and/or Palm, Windows, ....).

You seem to rub yourself on the definition of DB2. It seem like you
don't like that "your" definition of what DB2 should be comprised of
isn't Gartners, and IBMs. However DB2 is a brand-name. It is defined as
"DB2 Information Management" and comprises DB2 Record Manager, DB2
Everyplace, DB2 Content Manager, DB2 for Unix, Windows and Linux, DB2
for z/OS and DB2 for i/Series (I may have forgotten a couple).. and also
the Informix products, which are part of the group, but don't carry the
name.
The title UDB stands for Universal Dabase. It's a title reserved for the
DB2 products which support a certain set of basic OR functionality such
as distinct types, LOBs, functions and procedures, ...
Similarly IBM has other titles, such as Express which require a products
to support certain criteria for maintenance and installation to name a few.
Now, some of these DB2 Information Management products may not be
counted as relational. DB2 for i/Series (which's code is part and parcel
of OS/400) is relational and hence, obviously Gartner decides to count
it. If you have an issue with that, I'm sure Gartner can roughly state
how much of the numbers are DB2 for i/Series number.
Gartner is an independent Reasearch firm, they will do what they feel
right, not necessarily what IBM (or you) think.
If you ask nicely and are willing to pay more than the $100 US they ask
for, maybe they let you peek deeper into these numbers.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to separate DB2 function from OS/400 function.

But like you said above: many customers decide what to use.
Amazing how those customers can be more discerning than IBM's own
people...
when we discuss new "DB2" features I get: "Oh we do this through the
filesystem interface like that since n-years".

Bingo.
If a customers use OS/400 but not the SQL Interface, are they not
using DB2? If customers are using Oracle through XQuery are they not
using
Oracle the database system? Should they not be counted? Does Oracle know?

Serge, when will you "folks" just wake up from the marketing
bullshit you're fed every day? Can't you even spot the cretin
abuse of language that is such an argument?

Here is a clue: Oracle does not bundle Oracle licenses with
other totally inappropriate products. They only sell Oracle.
Therefore, what they sell cannot be other than Oracle licenses.
A more clear example, in case you have not clicked yet:
NO ONE goes to Oracle to buy a coffee grinder and ends up with an
Oracle license (as much as it may hurt Larry's over-sensitive pocket).

I'm not sure how that works if I buy Oracle collaboration suite or one
of the Apps. The later made quite a point of running only on Oracle DB
though. So you end up with an Oracle license just the same merely by
running Oracle Financials or whatever... and I have no problem with that. However, in IBM's case it is perfectly possible to buy an AS400 -
or whatever IBM calls coffee grinders now - with a bunch of inherited
and badly ported 3rd party System 38 packages and end up counted as a
DB2/UDB(this last one is even more cretin!...) "user". When you decide to by a Griddle and BBQ from Hamilton-Beach. Is it
immoral for Hamilton Beach to say they sold a Griddle?
You KNEW you would be buying a combination. If you wanted to buy only a
table BBQ you could have done so. And you could have done so cheaper.
If I a buy a Ferrari, but only use it in a traffic calming zone,
is it not a sports car any more? Good luck trying that with your
insurance :-)
In Microsoft's and IBM's case, the onus is on the maker to
PROVE they are not just churning numbers.
And IBM's poor excuse of "we do not know how many" is at best
a poor attempt to get their arses off the firing line. Got it now? Do you understand why I consider this kind of
semantics (by Gartner, IBM or whomever!) an offensive abuse of
anyone's patience and intelligence? Or do I have to use smaller
words to explain myself? Unless we agree to disagree which is OK. The doesn't need to be a
winner. There never is in these debates anyway.
Cripes, you people have some really smart cookies around, maybe
you should bounce these moronic marketing campaigns off them
every once in a while? *lol* The last thing our smart cookies want to deal with is marketing.
That is on eof IBMs bigger problems :-)
Brace yourself, because that whole "relational " DBMS categorization is
going to get pretty meaningless anyway as MS, Oracle and IBM bury XML
deep into their "engines" and Information Integration and Content
Management gets bigger and bigger.

I've been braced for it since, let me see: around 1997.

Well teh OR stuff was still mapped to Relational if that's what you
mean, but XML has a lot more "umpf" to it.
It's all data. Your favorite email repository, text, image, XML,
network router for crying out lout.

Did I ever say it wasn't?

Then why do you care so much about whether IBM labels a sale in data a
DB2 sale or a
*funnwordhere*-sale. Neither for a customer, nor for a stockholder, nor
for an IBM employee should it matter.

Cheers
Serge

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Nov 12 '05 #123
Niall Litchfield wrote:
In which way? - your initial well its all pretty much the same really way,
or your second its all designed for the use to which its put way? And of
course the billion dollar question - so why not move all the informix guys
to DB2 - after all it's better right.

DB2 for z/OS and DB2 for AS/400 is better than IDS for z/OS and IDS for
AS/400 by
virtue of IDS not being supported there.
That was Larry's point. Different codepase allow you to exploit the
platforms better.
BTW, Oracle is NOT the same code across their supported platforms. There
is a fair bit of deep integration which is one of the reasons why Oracle
never ships on the same date for all platforms.
IBM has driven deep integration for iSeries to an extreme and for z/OS
so far that the code-_bases_ are not the same with DB2 Unix Windows and
Linux.
There are some problems you catch along the way, such as sticking to
agreed upon semantics (which is a problem folks like I have to deal
with) , but it's well worth it, given that these two platforms are so
succcessful as to warrant this yearly flame war and many just want them
to _go away_ :-)

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Nov 12 '05 #124
Noons wrote:
What was stated here many times by IBM people was that the
code base was the same. Unqualified. Period. Whereas
Oracle's wasn't. About as much sense as the rest of
IBM's policies...

Noons, can you point us to a google-link where this claim was made. I'm
following these newsgroups since about 6 years and I have never seen
such a claim.

Cheers
Serge

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Nov 12 '05 #125
Noons wrote:
and funnily enough, Oracle is streets ahead in PRECISELY those platforms
with Microsoft catching up faster than anyone else.
UDB? How do you spell that? Some 35% INDEED...

Correct. That's how the game goes when one enters the market late.
But I see this as the glass being (already) half full.
When I joined IBM shortly after DB2 V5 shipped I was not certain I made
a good move given an abysmal marketshare at the time.
Now, tracking the share over 3 releases I think I'm in the right spot.

Cheers
Serge

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Nov 12 '05 #126
Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 10:29 PM:

It is a bit like me going out there and asking Mark Townsend to _admit_
that RDB licenses are counted under Oracle's marketshare. Well, I
If they are and I'm not aware of such a thing, then it is EQUALLY
wrong and as blatantly deranged as IBM's claims. And quite frankly if that
is what Gartner is doing, they truly deserve the title of morons.
Even Oracle admits RDB is a "hierarchic al db" and doesn't have
the nerve to call it relational!

Small code size. The point I wanted to make is that the decision what is
DB2 and what is OS/400 seems rather arbitrary looking in from the
outside.
Agreed 100%.
IBM could for all intents and purposes declare that DB2 for
i/Series IS the operation system and provides a file-system interface.
the name OS/400 would disappear and that would be that. You would simply
have to deal with it :-)
Sure. And IBM would also have to deal with the derogatory and derisive
comments of a sizable portion of the industry. Not that it would matter:
a couple of marketing blitzes and it would be all past history.

OK, so AS/400 had DBMS marketshare numbers long before DB2 UDB came out.
Of course.
Should these customers ,old and new depending on what you count, now
suddenly just fall off because they didn't have a sexy DBMS name for
what they were doing?
We are not talking the market share of the AS400, last time I looked.
Or rather: we are, indirectly. A very large number that skews overall
presence of UDB and provides as inaccurate a gage of the true market
as it can be.

We refer to DB2 as a "Family of Products". Just like other vendors have
multiple products under the same product line, so does IBM.
All in dah family, eh? :)
E.g. where are the DBMS's for mobile devises logged?
z/OS, obviously! At the very least. I'm even willing to bet IBM
will release "CICS-for-the-PDA" real soon now. All under Websphere,
of course... :)
"DB2 Information Management" and comprises DB2 Record Manager, DB2
Everyplace, DB2 Content Manager, DB2 for Unix, Windows and Linux, DB2
for z/OS and DB2 for i/Series (I may have forgotten a couple).. and also
the Informix products, which are part of the group, but don't carry the
name.

I'd say you probably forgot half a dozen. And that's just this semester...


If you ask nicely and are willing to pay more than the $100 US they ask
for, maybe they let you peek deeper into these numbers.
Not even remotely interested, at ANY price. Quite frankly I find all these
market "analysis" a sad joke.

I'm not sure how that works if I buy Oracle collaboration suite or one
of the Apps. The later made quite a point of running only on Oracle DB
though. So you end up with an Oracle license just the same merely by
running Oracle Financials or whatever... and I have no problem with that.
Yes. There is no secret whatsoever in that. Oracle make it QUITE clear
that their apps REQUIRE Oracle db server, and a license for it is mandatory.
It is NOT bundled in any way, shape or format. Like the DB2/AS400 one is.
When you decide to by a Griddle and BBQ from Hamilton-Beach. Is it
immoral for Hamilton Beach to say they sold a Griddle?

If they don't charge for it and just bundle it in, yes. They sold
nothing. They just gave it away as part of the product. Kinda like
the vacuum cleaner sales reps with the ubiquitous kitchen knife set. A
marketing prop, not a mainstay product. Oldest trick in the book.

You KNEW you would be buying a combination. If you wanted to buy only a
table BBQ you could have done so. And you could have done so cheaper.
Try to buy a AS400 WITHOUT the SQL component and see how much
change you get...
Unless we agree to disagree which is OK. The doesn't need to be a
winner. There never is in these debates anyway.
Agreed 100%.
*lol* The last thing our smart cookies want to deal with is marketing.
That is on eof IBMs bigger problems :-)
I apologize: one should NEVER wish marketing on anyone.... :)

Well teh OR stuff was still mapped to Relational if that's what you
mean, but XML has a lot more "umpf" to it.
Actually I think XML *is* the solution to OR mapping. Or rather
a XML schema. But, we digress...

Then why do you care so much about whether IBM labels a sale in data a
DB2 sale or a
*funnwordhere*-sale. Neither for a customer, nor for a stockholder, nor
for an IBM employee should it matter.


It does when a customer may be misled into believing they are buying into
a widely tested and widely used product when it is neither.
Then again, we better not go into Oracle's "testing".. . ;)

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo .com.au.nospam
Nov 12 '05 #127
Noons wrote:
Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 10:29 PM:

It is a bit like me going out there and asking Mark Townsend to
_admit_ that RDB licenses are counted under Oracle's marketshare. Well, I

If they are and I'm not aware of such a thing, then it is EQUALLY
wrong and as blatantly deranged as IBM's claims. And quite frankly if that
is what Gartner is doing, they truly deserve the title of morons.
Even Oracle admits RDB is a "hierarchic al db" and doesn't have
the nerve to call it relational!

Now, THAT i didn't know. Maybe I was mislead by the R in RDB? ;-)
Anyway, irrelevant, I suppose Oracle isn't making a lot of "new licence"
revenue with RDB. It would be more of an IDC problem than a Gartner
problem since IDC counts renewal which gives them different numbers, AFAIK..

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Nov 12 '05 #128
Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 10:55 PM:
Correct. That's how the game goes when one enters the market late.
Don't know... After all, DB2 commercially PRE-DATES Oracle, funny
enough!
When I joined IBM shortly after DB2 V5 shipped I was not certain I made
a good move given an abysmal marketshare at the time.
Now, tracking the share over 3 releases I think I'm in the right spot.


DB2 or UDB? You see, that is where these things have to be
VERY precisely stated, because of this permanent confusion about
what is what. And is that across the board or just on IBM's own
Unix boxes?

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo .com.au.nospam
Nov 12 '05 #129
Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 10:42 PM:

Noons, can you point us to a google-link where this claim was made. I'm
following these newsgroups since about 6 years and I have never seen
such a claim.


I think it was one of Blair's claims for DB2 that started it.
Can't find the original post, it's not in google anymore
although many of my replies are. Somewhere around this time
of the year, 2001. It's the marketing "season" anyways.
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo .com.au.nospam
Nov 12 '05 #130

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

68
5194
by: rkusenet | last post by:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1820667,00.asp The database market grew by 10.3 percent in 2004, fueled largely by hunger for business intelligence and analytics, according to numbers released by the Gartner Group on Monday. With 34.1 percent of the overall market, IBM holds a slim margin over its closest competitor, Oracle Corp., which maintains 33.7 percent of the overall market. Microsoft Corp. follows up with 20 percent of...
0
9935
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
11137
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
10742
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
0
10410
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
0
9571
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
1
7970
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules. He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms. Adolph will...
0
7122
by: conductexam | last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one. At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image. Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
2
4215
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
3
3231
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.