473,883 Members | 1,600 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 16717
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard .net> wrote in message news:<cq******* **********@news .uswest.net>...
"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.


forgot about this thread. ad homonym attacks don't answer the question:
is DB2 number skewed by its monopoly on the MF (the acronym has
various translations).

all my love,
robert
Nov 12 '05 #71
Larry <La***@nospam.n et> wrote in message news:<pA******* *********@news4 .srv.hcvlny.cv. net>...
And why wouldn't Oracle's results be skewed by it's heritage on UNIX,
and Microsoft's be skewed by its heritage on Windows? What does that
prove? As long as you are growing on the relevant platforms (which IBM
is), and as long as you maintain a significant overall market share ...
that proves that you are going to be around as a company and more
importantly, as a database company for the foreseeable future. This is
what's most important about market share. Otherwise, I don't understand
your point. It's like saying that because Nabisco has a higher overall
market share in the cookie market ... and that this is skewed by them
having the leading market share in Oreo sandwich cookies, you won't buy
Keebler cookies.

Larry Edelstein

robert wrote:
"rkusenet" <rk******@sympa tico.ca> wrote in message news:<2h******* *****@uni-berlin.de>...
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_...etshare_1.html

Interesting to see that database sales for windows is more than
Unix.

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


growing??? there was a news report a couple of days ago that IBM's
MF business was about $3 (or $4) billion annually. and that 10 years
ago it was $12 billion. i didn't attempt to verify this, of course.
anyone is welcome to do so. but, on the face of it, DB2/MF is NOT the
future.

robert
Nov 12 '05 #72
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard .net> wrote in message news:<c9******* ********@news.u swest.net>...
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.

--
Daniel Morgan
I didn't say anything about your "personal experience." I just said your
comments are nonsense. If you prefer: "your [limited] experience is
non-sense."
I have seen many DB2 installations on Windows. Since you live in Washington
state, where there is an extreme MS bias, most companies use MS SQL Server
on Windows. That combination is strong, but not quite as dominant in other
parts of the country.

Excluding all companies that also run DB2 on OS/390 and AS/400 is quite
restrictive. I believe that are over 2000 companies who use DB2 on IBM
mainframes. The number of companies that run AS/400 (or I series) is in the
tens of thousands, and DB2 comes with the OS.


when did it stop being DB/400??

and the poster's point: unix/nt DB2 installations as the SOLE platform
are rare in his experience. mine too. hard numbers can disprove this.
i've not gotten all the way up-to-date on this thread, so i eagerly
await.

(by the way, i don't hate DB2. i dislike the MF version compared to
UDB, though)

robert


So you seem to be excluding a huge percentage of the largest 5000 companies
in the US (most of whom have at least one IBM mainframe running DB2 or an
AS/400 which comes with DB2).

So your comments are ridiculous (again). Double-talk. Non-Sense.

Nov 12 '05 #73
bu*********@yah oo.com (Buck Nuggets) wrote in message news:<66******* *************** ****@posting.go ogle.com>...
Daniel Morgan <da******@x.was hington.edu> wrote in message news:<108596175 7.451220@yasure >...
You can't call the fact that I, personally, have never run into
DB2 on Windows nonsense.
No, but I can call that fact totally irrelevant. I have never run
into a production oracle database on windows either. But then again -
I'm seldom involved in windows projects. So this experience of mine
is also totally irrelevant.

You're an oracle consultant, right? Let me guess...you don't get
called into a lot of db2 projects, right? Hmmm, there could be a
conection here...

BTW, lately I have been running into db2/windows implementations -
often in conjunction with websphere and its add-on applications.


before WS 5.X you HAD to have DB2. that's where it stored its
configuration info. nice catch, that catch 22.

robert

And please - spare us the appeal to authority argument of your fortune
1000 companies. Many of us have consulted at dozens of forture 1000s
- and know how rare it is to ever see more than 1-2% of their IT
infrastructure. The fact that you may have spent two weeks
configuring an oracle server in the marketing department of company X
says and were not informed of their other vendor products is so
meaningless that it only further erodes your weak credibility on the
db2 market share.

I appreciate when you set the record straight on unfair oracle
criticisms. When you're the one engaging in FUD, you fall into the
same value category as body enhancement spam...

buck

Nov 12 '05 #74
Blair Adamache <ba*******@2muc hspam.yahoo.com > wrote in message news:<c9******* ***@hanover.tor olab.ibm.com>.. .
You don't have to own a market to be successful - you just have to be
good. Example: Websphere runs neck and neck with BEA Weblogic as the
leading web server (with Websphere usually in the lead), and DB2 as the
most commonly used database under Websphere (DB2 also works with
Weblogic of course). There are numerous other examples where DB2 is
growing and relevant, and the argument that
"DB2 is only on mainframes"

didn't say that. did ask whether IBM's numbers are skewed by a
market share number consisting of two segments, MF and AS/400 for
which there is no viable competition. the fairest comparison is
each vendor's share of global *nix. none has a lock-in there.

that is all.

robert
is as useless today as it was five years ago.

robert wrote:
"rkusenet" <rk******@sympa tico.ca> wrote in message news:<2h******* *****@uni-berlin.de>...
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_...etshare_1.html

Interesting to see that database sales for windows is more than
Unix.

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

Nov 12 '05 #75
> > > 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.


forgot about this thread. ad homonym attacks don't answer the question:
is DB2 number skewed by its monopoly on the MF (the acronym has
various translations).

all my love,
robert


Don't forget that Oracle also has quite a few (very expensive) OS/390
licenses. Many of these don't get much use, but they do exist.

DB2 for OS/390 has over 2500 installs. Given the processing power of a
mainframe versus a single UNIX server, the DB2 product is priced
accordingly. Mainframes run many applications, whereas UNIX servers are
typically hosting one or only a few applications each. So one DB2 OS/390
install can handle many different applications that would normally require
many UNIX servers, and their associated DBMS licenses.

I have been to well over 25 different companies that have DB2 on the
mainframe, and every single one had primarily (if not exclusively)
applications built from scratch that run on DB2 for OS/390. Many of the
companies that you rely on for daily services use this platform, including
utilities, banks, brokerages, etc. If the only companies you know about with
DB2 mainframe have only converted VSAM applications (without application
enhancements), then your company is rather unique.

Please tell me what is the architectural difference between a web
application with a DB2 for OS/390 database server versus a web application
with a DB2 for UNIX database server?

Why do you make ad database attacks about a product that you know nothing
about?
Nov 12 '05 #76
> growing??? there was a news report a couple of days ago that IBM's
MF business was about $3 (or $4) billion annually. and that 10 years
ago it was $12 billion. i didn't attempt to verify this, of course.
anyone is welcome to do so. but, on the face of it, DB2/MF is NOT the
future.

robert


If one is running an application on a mainframe (even with web clients) then
DB2 for mainframe is the future. Why can't a company make good database
servers for multiple platforms? Is that impossible?

I don't think software licenses for DB2 on mainframes has decreased to same
extent as the hardware (for obvious reasons). In fact they probably have not
decreased at all. Hardware costs have come down, and mainframes are now
using enterprise storage devices instead of "mainframe" storage devices.

What do you mean by "the future"? Most of us are in the business of
providing solutions to customers right now, and sometimes DB2 for mainframe
is the best solution. Right now.

In the future, hardware platforms will tend to merge. Windows Servers, and
UNIX servers are getting more powerful and more robust. Mainframes are
getting much cheaper, physically smaller, and capable of running multiple
OS's. IBM mainframes already run Linux instead of OS/390 if that is what
you prefer.
Nov 12 '05 #77
..yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c9******* ***@hanover.tor olab.ibm.com>.. .
You don't have to own a market to be successful - you just have to be
good. Example: Websphere runs neck and neck with BEA Weblogic as the
leading web server (with Websphere usually in the lead), and DB2 as the
most commonly used database under Websphere (DB2 also works with
Weblogic of course). There are numerous other examples where DB2 is
growing and relevant, and the argument that


"DB2 is only on mainframes"

didn't say that. did ask whether IBM's numbers are skewed by a
market share number consisting of two segments, MF and AS/400 for
which there is no viable competition. the fairest comparison is
each vendor's share of global *nix. none has a lock-in there.

that is all.

robert

Sure it helps DB2 sales numbers when a customer buys IBM hardware. But the
customer knows that going in. They know when buying an i-series (AS/400)
that Oracle and SQL Server are not available on that platform, and they
accept that. It is part of their buying decision. Customers are not as
stupid as you think.

Does installed base make a difference? Sure does. Oracle is the market
leader on UNIX, mostly (IMO) because they were first to market with a good
product. Many shops standardized on Oracle long before DB2 had a decent
product for that platform. That decision also spills over into Oracle on
Windows, since many companies "prefer" to standardize on one database across
the enterprise.

So Oracle benefits today base on their legacy of installed base, just as IBM
does in many situation also with their installed base of mainframe or
i-series. MS benefits by their installed base of Windows servers and the
relationship they have with their customers that run on that platform, and
of course, their ability to exploit Windows architecture in a way that other
companies cannot easily do.

The point is that market share is not necessarily a good indication of which
is the best product in terms of usability, price, and performance. I can
think of a lot of other products that have high market shares that are junk
(not that I am saying that Oracle is junk).
Nov 12 '05 #78
Don't know where you're getting this information, but it's not accurate
for DB2. Perhaps it is referring to mainframe hw ... not sure. But DB2
continues to grow on the mainframe every year.

Larry Edelstein

robert wrote:
Larry <La***@nospam.n et> wrote in message news:<pA******* *********@news4 .srv.hcvlny.cv. net>...
And why wouldn't Oracle's results be skewed by it's heritage on UNIX,
and Microsoft's be skewed by its heritage on Windows? What does that
prove? As long as you are growing on the relevant platforms (which IBM
is), and as long as you maintain a significant overall market share ...
that proves that you are going to be around as a company and more
importantly , as a database company for the foreseeable future. This is
what's most important about market share. Otherwise, I don't understand
your point. It's like saying that because Nabisco has a higher overall
market share in the cookie market ... and that this is skewed by them
having the leading market share in Oreo sandwich cookies, you won't buy
Keebler cookies.

Larry Edelstein

robert wrote:

"rkusenet" <rk******@sympa tico.ca> wrote in message news:<2h******* *****@uni-berlin.de>...
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_...etshare_1.html

Interesti ng to see that database sales for windows is more than
Unix.
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
demonstrat e 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

growing??? there was a news report a couple of days ago that IBM's
MF business was about $3 (or $4) billion annually. and that 10 years
ago it was $12 billion. i didn't attempt to verify this, of course.
anyone is welcome to do so. but, on the face of it, DB2/MF is NOT the
future.

robert


Nov 12 '05 #79
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard .net> wrote in message news:<c9******* ********@news.u swest.net>...
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.

--
Daniel Morgan


I didn't say anything about your "personal experience." I just said your
comments are nonsense. If you prefer: "your [limited] experience is
non-sense."
I have seen many DB2 installations on Windows. Since you live in Washington
state, where there is an extreme MS bias, most companies use MS SQL Server
on Windows. That combination is strong, but not quite as dominant in other
parts of the country.

Excluding all companies that also run DB2 on OS/390 and AS/400 is quite
restrictive. I believe that are over 2000 companies who use DB2 on IBM
mainframes. The number of companies that run AS/400 (or I series) is in the
tens of thousands, and DB2 comes with the OS.

So you seem to be excluding a huge percentage of the largest 5000 companies
in the US (most of whom have at least one IBM mainframe running DB2 or an
AS/400 which comes with DB2).

So your comments are ridiculous (again). Double-talk. Non-Sense.


so far as i know, oracle is oracle is oracle, no matter the platform.
not so for DB2:

1) System 3X, had an un-named 'integrated database'. S36/8, IIRC.
this may have been before...

2) System R the research implementation of Dr. Codd's paper

3) S38 morphed to AS/400 (Advanced System 400, get it?)
which eventually identified the db as DB/400

4) DB2 MF, from System R

5) DB/400 became DB2 for AS/400...

6) which became just DB2

7) DB2 for AIX....

8) which became DB2/UDB (after adding NT?)

these are 3 different code bases, still not fully compatible at the
DML level, much less DDL. is anyone at IBM willing to assert that they
are now from 1 code base?
Nov 12 '05 #80

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
9791
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,...
1
10845
by: Hystou | last post by:
Overview: Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
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
7123
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
5797
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
0
5990
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
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.