473,883 Members | 1,674 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 16701
IMHO IBM is rather bad about naming things.....


Right. Like actually understanding what words mean, or pretending they
don't mean anything. Like "Common" Server. Like the "Universal" Database
for Windows, Unix and Linux. Like the (other) "Universal" Database for
OS/390. Or like the other Universal Database for iSeries. Like Truth in
Marketing. But then again, people in unbreakable houses shouldn't throw
stones.

Nov 12 '05 #141
Mark Townsend wrote:
IMHO IBM is rather bad about naming things.....

Right. Like actually understanding what words mean, or pretending they
don't mean anything. Like "Common" Server. Like the "Universal" Database
for Windows, Unix and Linux. Like the (other) "Universal" Database for
OS/390. Or like the other Universal Database for iSeries. Like Truth in
Marketing. But then again, people in unbreakable houses shouldn't throw
stones.

Given the length of thsi thread it can certainly be forgiven that I
explained teh meaning of "Universal" . It has nothing to do with
platforms. All about extensibility.
But as you say no use throwing universal at grids... Marketing...

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Nov 12 '05 #142
Serge Rielau wrote:
Mark Townsend wrote:
IMHO IBM is rather bad about naming things.....
Right. Like actually understanding what words mean, or pretending they
don't mean anything. Like "Common" Server. Like the "Universal"
Database for Windows, Unix and Linux. Like the (other) "Universal"
Database for OS/390. Or like the other Universal Database for iSeries.
Like Truth in Marketing. But then again, people in unbreakable houses
shouldn't throw stones.

Given the length of thsi thread it can certainly be forgiven that I
explained teh meaning of "Universal" . It has nothing to do with
platforms. All about extensibility.
But as you say no use throwing universal at grids... Marketing...


So lets look at this a little further. You said Universal is a moniker
that applies to the suite of DB2 products that contain
a certain set of basic OR functionality such as distinct types, LOBs, functions and procedures, ... and these products are All about extensibility.


So within this (rather narrow) definition, can we expect the Universal
products to be the same ? Here are the extenders for DB2 Universal - all
managing distinct types, some using LOBs, all have functions and
procedures, all are fine examples of extensibility

DB2 Net Search Extender
DB2 Text Information Extender
DB2 Text Extender
DB2 Audio Extender
DB2 Image Extender
DB2 Video Extender
DB2 XML Extender
DB2 Spatial Extender

Which of these universal extensibility capabilities are available for
DB2 Universal Database for OS/390 ?

Which of these universal extensibility capabilities are available for
DB2 Universal Database for iSeries ?

And in fact, which of these universal extensibility capabilities are
indeed available on ALL the supported platforms that DB2 Universal
Database for LUW is currently available on ? You know, the one that does
actually share a code base ?

Where the universal extensibility capabilities are actually available on
all platforms, are there any platform differences between the
implementations ?

Nov 12 '05 #143
Blair Adamache allegedly said,on my timestamp of 8/06/2004 3:05 AM:
I have NEVER said that DB2 was the same code base on zOS (MVS) as it is
on Linux/UNIX/Windows. I have NEVER said that DB2 is the same code base
on zOS, VM and AS/400. I am willing to send you all newsgroup postings I
made in 2001 if you feel a need to verify (as long as you promise to use
them for nothing else).


Deal. Send me an email to the addy below and I'll send you a real
addy to email the messages zipped. You got my word. I can't
retrieve earlier than a certain point in that thread in google,
for some weird reason.

Oh yes, I have removed informix from this reply as the folks there
were getting rattled.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo .com.au[.nospam]
Nov 12 '05 #144
Joel Garry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 8/06/2004 7:40 AM:

Whoops! http://www.oracle.com/rdb/index.html?content.html

Shewt! That must be recent. It's not long ago I stopped at
OTN download areas where they referred to it as
"Oracle's Hierarchical db". Or some other silly term.

There you go folks: proof that marketing idiocy strikes
ALL of them, not just IBM.

(It's been 10 years?)


Unreal, eh? :)
What worries me is I remember competing with RDB without
Oracle. At Prime! Bugger, that was a LOT more than 10 years
ago...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo .com.au.nospam
Nov 12 '05 #145
Jeroen van den Broek allegedly said,on my timestamp of 8/06/2004 8:38 AM:
Assuming this has been >10 years back, as MVS/XA has been withdrawn end
1992, do you think nothing has changed since, both for the OS as for Oracle?
Actually, I know quite a few places that still ran it in 1996...
But no: being IBM, very little would have changed. After all,
there is not much one can change in
BALR R14,R15
or is there?
;)
Why are you getting personal?
Personal? You wish! :D
As a matter of fact, I work both with DB2 and Oracle (on OS/390) and
although I am far more familiar with DB2, I am perfectly happy with Oracle
as well.
Cool.
The manuals don't explain the OS (lots of IBM-manuals for that), but the
differences in architecture, administrative procedures, parameters, messages
etc between the OS/390 version of Oracle and the 'standard' Oracle
environment.
And remarkably, I can STILL type select * from my_table in MVS/XA, OS390, z/os
or anything else this side of a PC and get EXACTLY the same result, eh?
I can also type CREATE TABLE zot (f1 NUMBER) tablespace ZOT_TS
and have it work ANYWHERE, regardless of whatever bit size the number
data type might be in that hardware. And type CREATE TABLESPACE ZOT_TS
DATAFILE 'any suitable string' and it will damn WORK anywhere.
Not bad for a product that "needs" all those "manuels", eh?

You see, none of them have ANYTHING to do with how you'd write
or design the SQL for an app. It's the same, regardless of wherever you
might run it. That goes for dml AND ddl.

Now, if you want to claim that a "manuel" is needed to handle Oracle connecting
with CICS, sure. And HAC-whatever? Sure. And TSO? Sure. And SAF? Sure.
And <insert your flavour of MVS paranoia here>? Sure.
You see, those are IBM's own ideas of how to run a computer. NOBODY else
uses that sort of stuff other than
MVS/OS390/z/os/whatever/the/flavour/of/the/week/is/at/rebadge/central.
I am perfectly aware that I am no match for you w.r.t. knowledge about
Oracle in general, but this doesn't give you the right to act like a VIP and
that is a pity and not what I meant. My apologies.
I have read more of the current OS/390-specific Oracle-documentation then
yourself.
That would be a fair assumption. I couldn't care much for that
platform, quite frankly. Boring. Been there, done that.

Maybe you care to read this pdf-file:
http://shareweb.share.org/proceeding...data/S0961.PDF
It contains an 'Introduction to Oracle on OS/390 with OSDI' written by Ken
Panza from Oracle.
A few comments:

wow! So, Oracle delivered its RDBMS in 1996 for MVS that had been
"withdrawn" in 1992, eh? Hmmmmmmmm...... ..

"OS390 cross memory services"?????? Precious! Longest spelling
of "shared memory" I've ever seen. Talk about spin... LOL!

"IBM's OS390 supports only 31-bit addressing". Not bad for a
"sophistica ted" OS. :) Thank God they removed the 16 Mb "line"
between MVS and OS390, eh? Oh, bugger...

WTH are there TWO versions of the kernel for a single OS. I can
see why, but it should NEVER have been needed. Says a lot for the
level of incompatibility of
MVS/OS390/z/os/whatever/the/flavour/of/the/week/is/at/rebadge/central
with itself.

One clear point above all: OSDI is not there to make Oracle look
different. It is there because
MVS/OS390/z/os/whatever/the/flavour/of/the/week/is/at/rebadge/central
is a piece of old garbage that should have been removed from the IT
landscape eons ago. But I guess IBM hasn't yet milked enough moolah
out of this old technology, eh?
One final question: if you think Unix is the only viable environment not
only for Oracle, but for all critical business software, why bother about


No it isn't the only viable environment. But I can guarantee you: neither is
MVS/OS390/z/os/whatever/the/flavour/of/the/week/is/at/rebadge/central.
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo .com.au.nospam
Nov 12 '05 #146
Data Goob allegedly said,on my timestamp of 8/06/2004 10:09 AM:
Very basic features, but it worked. VAX C was easy too, even
using VAX curses-library was interesting, but I could never
grasp an idea of where I was on VMS, directories just didn't
seem to be relevant...


Ever tried
del [...]*.*.*
with full access rights? Fun and games...
;)

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo .com.au.nospam
Nov 12 '05 #147
Mark Townsend wrote:
Serge Rielau wrote:
Mark Townsend wrote:

IMHO IBM is rather bad about naming things.....


Right. Like actually understanding what words mean, or pretending
they don't mean anything. Like "Common" Server. Like the "Universal"
Database for Windows, Unix and Linux. Like the (other) "Universal"
Database for OS/390. Or like the other Universal Database for
iSeries. Like Truth in Marketing. But then again, people in
unbreakable houses shouldn't throw stones.

Given the length of thsi thread it can certainly be forgiven that I
explained teh meaning of "Universal" . It has nothing to do with
platforms. All about extensibility.
But as you say no use throwing universal at grids... Marketing...


So lets look at this a little further. You said Universal is a moniker
that applies to the suite of DB2 products that contain
a certain set of basic OR functionality such as distinct types, LOBs,
functions and procedures, ...


and these products are
All about extensibility.

So within this (rather narrow) definition, can we expect the Universal
products to be the same ? Here are the extenders for DB2 Universal - all
managing distinct types, some using LOBs, all have functions and
procedures, all are fine examples of extensibility

DB2 Net Search Extender
DB2 Text Information Extender
DB2 Text Extender
DB2 Audio Extender
DB2 Image Extender
DB2 Video Extender
DB2 XML Extender
DB2 Spatial Extender

Which of these universal extensibility capabilities are available for
DB2 Universal Database for OS/390 ?

Which of these universal extensibility capabilities are available for
DB2 Universal Database for iSeries ?

And in fact, which of these universal extensibility capabilities are
indeed available on ALL the supported platforms that DB2 Universal
Database for LUW is currently available on ? You know, the one that does
actually share a code base ?

Where the universal extensibility capabilities are actually available on
all platforms, are there any platform differences between the
implementations ?

Mark,
Did I talk about Universal being a testimony of IBM selling the same
extenders on all platforms? Are we in process of creating another myth
here? "IBMer claimed..!"

Even if extenders would need to be changed (which I don't know) when
going against DB2 AS/400 or DB2 z/Series it would still be irrelevant
since Oracle cartridges are effectively a no show on these platforms.

Aside, you are an executive, you know what a spreadsheet looks like.
Given that DB2 runs on one codebase across Unix, Windows and Linux I'm
sure the reason that certain extenders may be sold only on certain of
these platforms is not a technical issue. It's some executives decision
after staring down a spreadsheet.

I presume similar decisions are made at Oracle. Like: Do all Oracle apps
and cartidges running on Oracle DB also run on Oracle on Linux/zSeries?
(and are thre customer actually doing it)

Or why doesn't Daimler Chrysler sell the A-Class in North Amerika?
Must be the roads being incompatible. Couldn't possibly be a business
decision.

Cheers
Serge

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Nov 12 '05 #148
Its pathetic that you can't write good code. ;-)

If you can grok C++, then you should be able to write thread safe C code
and then use them. And actually if you're wroting in C++ then you need
to have your head examined. But thats a whole different flame war. ;-)

But I bet you have trouble with JDBC and how J2EE tries to use the
database only as a means to make objects persistent. ;-)

But hey what do I know? ;-)
I"m just an old school programmer.
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
Daniel Morgan wrote:
Mark A wrote:
"robert" <gn*****@rcn.co m> wrote in message
news:da******** *************** ***@posting.goo gle.com...

what i've not seen is the other side of this coin: that (perhaps)
IBM's share is skewed (looks larger than it really is) by the
fact that it pretty much owns the mainframe. a relative handful
of very expensive installs. in other words, i question how relevant
DB2 is to the future of relational databases. IBM needs to
demonstrate that it is relevant outside of conversions (i use
the term very, very loosely) of behemouth COBOL/VSAM systems. at
my work, they just defined tables from the copybooks. i
gather this is quite common.

robert


Since DB2 mainframe has been around since the mid-1980's, that is
ridiculous. The overwhelming majority or DB2 OS/390 applications were
designed on DB2 from scratch. Your company may be an exception, and
somewhat
backward. After all, they employ you, so it must be a really screwed up
company.


But for how much longer ... I wonder?

I am watching the huge inroads being made by clustered Linux taking out
Sun's and H/P's more expensive offerings. I built an 8 CPU cluster a few
weeks back with less than $11,000 US in hardware.

How long before it becomes easy to build OS/390 equivalent machines
with a rack of 2 CPU x 4GB Intel boxes running RedHat AS?

I suspect far sooner than you want to imagine.

And when the big iron goes ... do you think DB2 will survive? Informix,
in my opinion, has a better chance of surviving.

Well, I ran Informix on my Red Hat Linux 5.0 box for a while. It was a
bit pathetic in that it did not have an API for C++: only for C. So I
ended up writing a large bunch of C functions to interface to the
Informix server. It worked, but sloppy. Then I upgraded to Red Hat Linux
6.0 and Informix never worked again. I e-mailed Informix about it and
they said they did not know if it would work with 6.0 or not. I said I
would be glad to test it for them, but that the CD-ROM I had would not
read and could they send me another one. They never answered any e-mails
after that.

Which is why I upgraded to IBM DB2 UDB V6.1 which worked just fine.
Since I am cheap, I kept V6.1 through upgrades to RHL 6.2 and 6.3. Now
DB2 V6.1 did not really like RHL 7.3. It worked because there were some
"compatabil ity libraries" that could be used, but it meant I had to
change all the makefiles to use those libraries, including getting it to
use the compatibility version of ldd.so.

Anyhow, when I built this machine I put Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 ES on
it and installed IBM DB2 UDB V8.1 (upgraded to 8.1.5) and after a fight
to get it installed (graphic installer does not work), it runs just fine
on a dual hyperthreaded Intel XEON machine with 4GB (expandable to 16 GB
if I found I needed it).

Unless Informix has been greatly improved since the time RHL 6 came out,
I do not see why anyone would wish to use it unless it is a lot cheaper
than DB2.

My needs are quite modest, since I am running it single-user for a
single small (by dbms standards) database. But back when I started,
postgreSQL and Oracle were the other alternatives, and postgreSQL did
not run right (one version would not allow primary keys to be specified,
and another was unable to have views), and Oracle's license agreement
was so complicated that I refused to sign it.

If a small user such as I can use it, I see no reason why a larger user
could not.


Nov 12 '05 #149
Sigh.

I'll wager that you've never left the glass house. Let me guess, you
think a PC is best to be used for 3270 emulation?

LOL...

Yes, most people who have DB2 on the PC probably also have DB2 running
on P Series or the Big Iron.

However, that is not to say that there are no customers that run DB2 on
PCs that don't have a mainframe or don't run DB2 elsehere. You seem to
forget that there are a lot of people who buy can'd apps and don't know
what's running underneath.
Daniel Morgan wrote:
Mark A wrote:
I've yet to run into a single instance of DB2 on Windows ... or for
that matter DB2 on non-IBM hardware. Do they exist? Of course. But
they are few and far between. And almost all in companies that have
DB2 on an IBM platform already.
--
Daniel Morgan


This is complete nonsense. Unless you consider all IBM compatible PC
servers
to be IBM's (which of course is not the case).

DB2 UNIX runs on HP/UX and Sun Solaris. Many large companies run on these
two non-IBM hardware platforms. I personally have used DB2 on Solaris
quite
a few time.

You can't call the fact that I, personally, have never run into
DB2 on Windows nonsense. And you sure can't dig your way out of it
by making reference to HP and Sun hardware unless you are somehow
equating Solaris with a Microsoft product.

So I'll try the statement again ... I ... that means mean personally, in
35 years in this industry ... seen DB2 on Windows in any organization
that didn't have DB2 also on another IBM platform such as a mainframe
or AS400.

I can not be wrong about my personal experience.

If you wish to prove that my personal experience is somehow skewed and
not representative of the database market as a whole ... then here's
how you can do it.

Publish official numbers showing the number of DB2 licenses, on MS
Windows, that are in companies that are not also using DB2 on mainframes
or AS400. Simple.


Nov 12 '05 #150

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
9934
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
9789
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
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
9570
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
7969
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
7120
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();...
0
5989
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
1
4608
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
2
4214
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.

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.