No future for DB2

[rkusenet]

This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the
author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp

[Matt Emmerton]

"Buck Nuggets" <bu*********@ya hoo.com> wrote in message
news:11******** *************@z 14g2000cwz.goog legroups.com...

you could at least make your trolling a little less obvious:

- stating that the number of books = product viability is pretty
primitive logic. I think most of us are aware of the connection
between name recognition and massive book purchases by aspiring
technologies (see all the php/mysql books for dummies, etc).

- stating that ibm is only good at mainframes will be caught by
anyone paying attention to the industry - and familiar with
Power5/PowerPC CPUs, pseries & xseries hardware, websphere, db2, etc.

- stating that you actually like db2 and then complaining about ibm's
marketing is bizarre. The only database that's got more low-key
marketing than db2 is postgresql - and it doesn't have a vendor!

What would you call http://www.enterprisedb.com? Sure, they haven't reached
"commercial release" status now but they definitely look like a commercial
vendor to me!

--
Matt Emmerton

[Mark A]

"DA Morgan" <da******@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1122600962 .204347@yasure. ..

Mark A wrote:

You seem to be talking about DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows (LUW) and
DB2 for z/OS as if they are one product and confusing the entire issue we
are discussing.

So now they are separate products?

Either way ... I don't recall making a single reference to Linux, UNIX,
or Windows. Perhaps my reference to COBOL, CICS, MVS JCL, OS/390, z/OS,
TSO, VSAM, IMS, REXX, ISPF, and CLISTS confused you.

z/OS runs on Windows now? Didn't realize how far out of the loop I was.
;-)

--
Daniel A. Morgan

There article in question (remember the article?) was predicting the future
of DB2 for LUW, not DB2 for z/OS. Yes they are separate products, but they
are reasonably close at the DML level.

The fact that you didn't make any reference to DB2 for LUW and the article
focused on that product, is the basic problem with your analysis.

[Serge Rielau]

DA Morgan wrote:

Serge Rielau wrote:

In 10 years there will be a lot more XQuery.
I fear who reigns RDBMS in 10-15 years is as interesting as IMS
marketshare.

I don't think so. XQuery will not stand the test of time any more
than storying XML in the database will. XML was developed for a
purpose. Storing it and querying it makes no sense, wastes resources,
and is highly inefficient.

*lol* Apparently Mark T. (speak up man!)and his opponents at MS and IBM
disagree.
There isn't one major DBMS that hasn't realized that XQuery is a must
have. Oracle 10gR2 has it, SQL Server 2005 has it, Viper has it.

The hierarchical DBMS of the world will stick around
The RDBMS will stick around
and this new breed of DBMS will find their place.
All that is part of Information Management.

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Mark A]

"DA Morgan" <da******@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1122600765 .768696@yasure. ..

That is not what is happening in Redwood Shores but thanks for your
opinion. I will give it all the consideration it is worth.

Leading to the eventual demise of one of the two products eh.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

Redwood Shores? I am talking about Oracle sales reps and what they pitching
to companies looking for an HR package. I know of one company in San Jose
where in the last 30 days Oracle sales people are only offering Oracle as a
HR solution, completely pretending like Peoplesoft does not exist. I suspect
that is pretty much true across the board.

But I have no doubt that Oracle Application Development Lab will steal as
much Peoplesoft technology to include on Oracle Apps as they possibly can.
But at the moment, Oracle sales reps are only selling Oracle solutions.

Yes, I expect the Peoplesoft products to eventually be withdrawn from
marketing.

[bka]

Much and most are not identical terms.

[Noons]

Serge Rielau wrote:

In 10 years there will be a lot more XQuery.
I fear who reigns RDBMS in 10-15 years is as interesting as IMS marketshare.

Good point.

Yet:
XML, how deranged is that? Store your metadata with your data
and send it out for every single instance of data. Over and over
again.

"100Mrows? No problem, sir: we'll send you the metadata for every
column of those rows 100Mtimes."
<pause/>
"hello IBM? Can I buy some more disk?"

Reminds me of the "to-be-sure-to-be-sure" old Irish gag.
What a sad joke IT has turned into...

[Buck Nuggets]

Art,

I'll keep my fingers crossed.

I've built quite a few massive databases on db2, oracle, informix,
sybase, and sql server - and Informix is my favorite.

Meanwhile, maybe some of that informix elegance is rubbing off on db2:
it has improved so much in the last few years that it's also become
pretty fun to work with. And the workgroup license along with large
memory footprint, mdc, mqt, and a fast four-way smp can handle a vast
amount of data and queries both cheap and easy.

buck

[Noons]

Buck Nuggets wrote:

you could at least make your trolling a little less obvious:
I didn't start it, nuggets-boy. But I'll end it if I want to
and when I want to. Not because you belched. Clear enough?
- stating that you actually like db2 and then complaining about ibm's
marketing is bizarre.
No. You're just not intelligent enough to understand it.

Isn't there some other group you could go spend time at for a while?
Yes. It's called comp.databases. oracle.server. Where I am now.
It's you effing deranged lot that keep coming here with these
piss poor and infantile attempts at ad-hominem attacks.
You don't see me starting threads in db2 groups, do you nuggy-boy?
So, piss off you and your veiled threats before I clip you across
the ears.
Perhaps go to some islamic/hindi/budhist group and tell them that their
god is irrelevant because you found more 10x as many books on
christianity as their religion?

I don't start threads outside of c.d.o.s., moron.
You got the wrong person.

[Noons]

Serge Rielau wrote:

There isn't one major DBMS that hasn't realized that XQuery is a must
have. Oracle 10gR2 has it, SQL Server 2005 has it, Viper has it.
"must have" != "used", Serge.
The hierarchical DBMS of the world will stick around
The RDBMS will stick around
and this new breed of DBMS will find their place.
All that is part of Information Management.

You're right, of course. Except for the volumes.

[Noons]

John Bailo wrote:

ib****@yahoo.co m wrote:

I completely agree. No future for DB2, at all.

IBM created the World's Chess Champion.

If they want to make DB2 the world's database champion, they will do
so...with ease.

--

Typical fanfare logic...