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

[DA Morgan]

Anton Versteeg wrote:

DA Morgan wrote:

Those working with DB2 should take a serious look at which is more
important ... product loyalty or paying the mortgage.

You still have a mortgage?
Mine was paid off long time ago :)

How about a charitable donation to put two lovely young
ladies through graduate school so I can pay mine off too? ;-)
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Noons wrote:

Anton Versteeg wrote:

No since Oracle has zip marketshare on the mainframe,
my statement is true, but to please you I will rephrase it to:
DB2 is the only product that has proven it runs on the mainframe,
midrange and PC and also sunstantial market share.

Using EXACTLY the same argument as you then:
I have NEVER come across DB2 on the PC. So,
it doesn't run on the PC, period.
Howzzat-den for argument?

In 10 years there will be far fewer mainframes.
In 10 years there will be far more PCs
I think your argument carries more weight.

And, BTW, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group runs Oracle
on mainframes.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Knut Stolze wrote:

That's a nice flamewar here. Let's fan it some more... ;-)

Your metric doesn't mean anything useful. As you are surely aware, the
number of books probably only says samething about the number of *bad* book
being available - not about the number of good and useful books, which is
undoubtedly rather small for Oracle too. (I'm inclined to agree that there
might be more useful Oracle books out there than for DB2.)

Another idea is: why are so many books needed for Oracle in the first place?
Makes me wonder. ;-)

By all means ... why not. But not a bit of this is flames. No one is
saying your product is garbage and ours is gooder. This is simple
statements of fact you can verify with any web browser.

Books (bookstores and amazon.com) and employment opportunities
(dice.com, monster.com, hotjobs.com) are a direct measure of
the vibrancy of the user community.

There are few DB2 books because the user community is aging baby-boomers
such as myself who know enough to get by until retirement. There are few
newbies coming into the marketplace.

Look at my reference to training classes at colleges and universities.
We don't teach DB2 for a reason: No one cares. Students don't care and
employers don't care. And yes we have surveyed employers from the San
Francisco Bay area up to Seattle and while there are some big shops with
DB2 and mainframes ... they don't produce 1% of the demand created by
those hiring SQL Server and Oracle.

The reason there are so many books on Oracle is not what you assume
though I suspect your statement disingenuous but rather that the product
line is so broad.

There are books on SQL and PL/SQL. There are books on high availability
options such as RAC, DataGuard and RMAN, there are books on App Server,
books on Java and JDeveloper, books on Performance Tuning, books on
efficient design.

So, for a single example, why are there no books on efficient design
with DB2? No one is designing new apps? No one cares about efficiency?
Or perhaps those my age that have 10+ years under their belt are just
marking time until they can go fishing.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Data Goob wrote:

Even if your statements are correct ( following the trend here :-) DB2
scales better than Oracle, or SQL-Server.
And looking at Microsoft as the poster-child for this discussion lets
agree that superior technology has never one the day over superior
marketing. Ask the fine people who developed Fox how they feel about
MS Access. Or the fine people who developed OS/2 about Windows. Or
even your new friends at Informix how they feel about DB2. ;-)
The big question is why IBM
hasn't really done the marketing. The answer is Java. They have put
a lot of eggs in the Java basket, but have hardly spoken about DB2 as
"da bomb", or the hottest thing. It's not their style to do so, but
you do get the impression that IBM will stay the course with its
quirky, goofy, self-deprecating commercial ad campaigns. There does
appear to be a move to make DB2 ubiquitous in the market silently, as
a utilitarian tool, as well as a mainstream database. But marketing
is where the action is, and any product, no matter where it comes
from won't survive without great marketing. SQL-Server is about to
have its big day Q4 2005, but doubtful we'll see any noise from IBM.
SQL Server will be lucky if its next version is released during the
current decade. At least without deprecating much of the "new"
functionality. They are what ... 3.5 years behind schedule?
Oracle will probably have its usual suspects show up in the trades
with compelling acrimony why SQL-Server is a bad choice--again--and
the cycle will repeat... What is really interesting is the SQL-Server
market, and where everyone will be focused for the near term.

Microsoft has been and is primarily a marketing jugernaut. The are no
match technologically speaking to either DB2, Informix, or Oracle. To
do so would cost them money and then Bill might not be able to afford
the Caesar salad.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

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.

Just like they did with OS/2 eh.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[bka]

Bobtdbb wrote:

2005 (Colleen Graham) -- "Much of IBM's growth was generated by its DB2
on the zSeries"

You seem to be quoting selectively. Colleen also wrote: "IBM's DB2
sales on the UNIX platform performed well with nearly 9 percent
growth,"

[Knut Stolze]

Noons wrote:

Knut Stolze apparently said,on my timestamp of 28/07/2005 9:41 PM:

Your metric doesn't mean anything useful.

No metric that doesn't include a "fanfare of the common blue"
will ever mean anything useful to anyone at IBM.

Oh good that I'm only half IBM.

--
Knut Stolze
Information Integration Development
IBM Germany / University of Jena

[Serge Rielau]

Knut Stolze wrote:

Oh good that I'm only half IBM.

Let's hope its the upper half. Especially since ibm_97 (he needs an
upgrade) took offence to IBM's active-active replication capabilities

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

[Serge Rielau]

DA Morgan wrote:

Noons wrote:

Anton Versteeg wrote:

No since Oracle has zip marketshare on the mainframe,
my statement is true, but to please you I will rephrase it to:
DB2 is the only product that has proven it runs on the mainframe,
midrange and PC and also sunstantial market share.

Using EXACTLY the same argument as you then:
I have NEVER come across DB2 on the PC. So,
it doesn't run on the PC, period.
Howzzat-den for argument?

In 10 years there will be far fewer mainframes.
In 10 years there will be far more PCs
I think your argument carries more weight.

And, BTW, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group runs Oracle
on mainframes.

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.

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

[Knut Stolze]

Serge Rielau wrote:

Knut Stolze wrote:

Oh good that I'm only half IBM.

Let's hope its the upper half. Especially since ibm_97 (he needs an
upgrade) took offence to IBM's active-active replication capabilities

Don't worry - the other 50% will be dealt with soon. ;-)

--
Knut Stolze
Information Integration Development
IBM Germany / University of Jena