By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,144 Members | 972 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,144 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

database market share 2003

P: n/a
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 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
346 Replies


P: n/a
rkusenet wrote:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_...etshare_1.html

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


In the industry, we've been through these statistics battles before. I
wonder which variant on statistics and sample techniques they used to
'prove' this one.

(Such numbers no longer mean anything except to people who have no idea what
numbers mean. And for those people, I found a wonderful new book: The
complete idiot's guide to statistics.)

/Hans
Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
"rkusenet" <rk******@sympatico.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.

Windows is the only operating system that supports all of the major
databases. MS SQL Server only runs on Windows.
Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
Oh, does MySQL run on Windows?

Mark A wrote:
"rkusenet" <rk******@sympatico.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.


Windows is the only operating system that supports all of the major
databases. MS SQL Server only runs on Windows.


Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.databases.oracle.server.]
On 2004-05-27, Blair Adamache <ba*******@2muchspam.yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh, does MySQL run on Windows?
MySQL should run on any OS that can support the GNU toolchain.

This includes Win32.

This probably includes QNX and the like.

Mark A wrote:
"rkusenet" <rk******@sympatico.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.


Windows is the only operating system that supports all of the major
databases. MS SQL Server only runs on Windows.

--
The public has a right to free music. It's part of the bargain that
was originally made with musicians and publishers. It's time that the |||
debate was shifted to reflect that. Robber Barons and their Toadies / | \
are distracting us from the original facts of the situation.

Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a

"rkusenet" <rk******@sympatico.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.


Interesting, but not entirely surprising, surely?

Very few databases on the planet would require the sort of O/S feature set
that Unix/Linux brings to the party, and even fewer DBAs would be familiar
with the Unix/Linux environment (the ubiquitous nature of Windows on the
desktop takes care of the 'comfort' factor, however short-sighted that might
be). "Good enough" is often just what the customer needs (I had one just the
other week running a 100MB+ database in Access. Not much chance of them ever
investing in Oracle, I suspect).

The interesting snippet for me in that article was that Oracle has a 69%
share of the Linux database market and 300%+ growth. Where the real exciting
action is, Microsoft is nowhere to be seen, of course.

Regards
HJR
Nov 12 '05 #6

P: n/a
"Howard J. Rogers" <hj*@dizwell.com> wrote in message
news:40***********************@news.optusnet.com.a u...

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

The interesting snippet for me in that article was that Oracle has a 69%
share of the Linux database market and 300%+ growth. Where the real

exciting action is, Microsoft is nowhere to be seen, of course.

Regards
HJR


Define "exciting". Perhaps Microsoft finds it more "exciting" to make money
than to throw $200m at a nascent market doing only $116m in 2002.
Nov 12 '05 #7

P: n/a
"Blair Adamache" <ba*******@2muchspam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c9**********@hanover.torolab.ibm.com...
Oh, does MySQL run on Windows?

I don't consider MySQL to be one of the major databases in terms of market
share, especially since it is freeware. I suppose from IBM's point of view
it is considered to be competition.
Nov 12 '05 #8

P: n/a

"Jarmo" <ja***@jarmo.com> wrote in message
news:40***********************@reading.news.pipex. net...
"Howard J. Rogers" <hj*@dizwell.com> wrote in message
news:40***********************@news.optusnet.com.a u...

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

The interesting snippet for me in that article was that Oracle has a 69%
share of the Linux database market and 300%+ growth. Where the real

exciting
action is, Microsoft is nowhere to be seen, of course.

Regards
HJR


Define "exciting". Perhaps Microsoft finds it more "exciting" to make

money than to throw $200m at a nascent market doing only $116m in 2002.


I smell a flame war. And you're welcome to it, but you'll have to play on
your own.
Exciting means any market that is growing at 300% plus a year.

HJR
Nov 12 '05 #9

P: n/a
Blair Adamache wrote:
Oh, does MySQL run on Windows?

Mark A wrote:
"rkusenet" <rk******@sympatico.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.


Windows is the only operating system that supports all of the major
databases. MS SQL Server only runs on Windows.

We could argue if it's a major player or not... But we can't argue that
it's available for windows as both a binary distribution and also as
source code for VC++ 6.0:

http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/4.0.html

Regards.
Nov 12 '05 #10

P: n/a
Well, given the market share a freeware operating system has achieved,
who knows?

Mark A wrote:
"Blair Adamache" <ba*******@2muchspam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c9**********@hanover.torolab.ibm.com...
Oh, does MySQL run on Windows?


I don't consider MySQL to be one of the major databases in terms of market
share, especially since it is freeware. I suppose from IBM's point of view
it is considered to be competition.


Nov 12 '05 #11

P: n/a
>
Define "exciting". Perhaps Microsoft finds it more "exciting" to make money
than to throw $200m at a nascent market doing only $116m in 2002.


Certainly gotta be better than spending $1 billion on a 3% market
share that's generating only $170 m in rev and dropping by over 15%
each year.
Nov 12 '05 #12

P: n/a
Mark Townsend wrote:
Define "exciting". Perhaps Microsoft finds it more "exciting" to make money
than to throw $200m at a nascent market doing only $116m in 2002.

Certainly gotta be better than spending $1 billion on a 3% market
share that's generating only $170 m in rev and dropping by over 15%
each year.


Tell me it isn't so. Maybe they'll buy Sybase and Advanced Revelation.
Then they'll have a far larger market share than those puny companies
like Oracle and Microsoft.

Heck by now Ballmer might even be ready to sell Fox and then how could
you ever hope to compete. ;-)

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Nov 12 '05 #13

P: n/a
Its been proven that Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop. So there's
definitely a market need for RDBMS that run on Windows.

Considering that the bulk of the RDBMSs and their applications are small
and straight forward, you could run them on a windows server.

So it should be no shock that you will see all major vendors writing for
that platform.
Mark A wrote:
"rkusenet" <rk******@sympatico.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.


Windows is the only operating system that supports all of the major
databases. MS SQL Server only runs on Windows.


Nov 12 '05 #14

P: n/a
"rkusenet" <rk******@sympatico.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 #15

P: n/a
"robert" <gn*****@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:da**************************@posting.google.c om...
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.
Nov 12 '05 #16

P: n/a
Mark A wrote:
"robert" <gn*****@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:da**************************@posting.google.c om...
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.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Nov 12 '05 #17

P: n/a
Daniel,

This reminds me of the 80s when client/server and distributed computing
first came in to vogue. The big headline was that the mainframe was a
dinosaur and would soon be replaced by distributed systems. I'm still
waiting. And I think the same thing holds for Linux. It is certainly
appropriate for certain applications. But its got a ways to go before it
matures. And even then, I somehow don't think that a Linux system built
with the hw that you quote will ever be running you bank accounts, your
credit cards, and making reservations for you on airlines. Most, if not
all, of these type of applications require the RAS of the mainframe ...
and I don't see a day real soon when they won't.

Larry Edelstein

Daniel Morgan wrote:
Mark A wrote:
"robert" <gn*****@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:da**************************@posting.google.c om...
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.


Nov 12 '05 #18

P: n/a
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******@sympatico.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 #19

P: n/a
Daniel Morgan wrote:
Mark A wrote:
"robert" <gn*****@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:da**************************@posting.google.c om...
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
"compatability 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.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 00:05:00 up 7 days, 7:20, 3 users, load average: 0.34, 0.28, 1.11

Nov 12 '05 #20

P: n/a
> > 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.

Big iron is not as big, nor as expensive, as it once was. The actual
hardware boundaries between mainframe and smaller computers are starting to
disappear. The biggest cost of a mainframe is the software, and OS/390 and
z/OS are still formidable products for certain applications in large
enterprises.
Nov 12 '05 #21

P: n/a
In the real world Informix is already dead.

"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1085885854.322603@yasure...
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.

--
Daniel Morgan


Nov 12 '05 #22

P: n/a
rkusenet wrote:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_...etshare_1.html

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


And we give a shit Because _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ?

W(hy)TF were you stupid enough to cross-post this worthless waste of
bandwidth based on meaningless numbers that have been aggregated almost out
of existence?

Geeeezzzzzzz...........
Nov 12 '05 #23

P: n/a
Unfortunately I don't have the Gartner report (The summary used to be
free :-(, But an interesting number to look at may be tracking the
Windows share.
IBM Entered that market with DB2 V5 I believe. The Unix market was
entered with the prior release.
For being the last one entering the game I think DB2 has been doing
quite nicely :-)

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Nov 12 '05 #24

P: n/a
Serge Rielau wrote:
Unfortunately I don't have the Gartner report (The summary used to be
free :-(, But an interesting number to look at may be tracking the
Windows share.
IBM Entered that market with DB2 V5 I believe. The Unix market was
entered with the prior release.
For being the last one entering the game I think DB2 has been doing
quite nicely :-)

Cheers
Serge


If you define the Windows database marketplace as one that doesn't
contain MS Access and MS Fox?

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
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Nov 12 '05 #25

P: n/a
In article <c9**********@hanover.torolab.ibm.com>, Serge Rielau
(sr*****@ca.eye-be-em.com) says...
Unfortunately I don't have the Gartner report (The summary used to be
free :-(, But an interesting number to look at may be tracking the
Windows share.
IBM Entered that market with DB2 V5 I believe. The Unix market was
entered with the prior release.
For being the last one entering the game I think DB2 has been doing
quite nicely :-)

Cheers
Serge

I found some DB2 UDB history at
http://www.tendigit.com/izone/history/history.html
Nov 12 '05 #26

P: n/a
> 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.
Nov 12 '05 #27

P: n/a
And I can say that across about half a dozen customers that I have in
the NY Metro area, I have two that are using DB2 on Solaris (and in both
cases, they did not have DB2 on any other platform prior to Solaris).

Larry Edelstein

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.


Nov 12 '05 #28

P: n/a
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.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Nov 12 '05 #29

P: n/a
Larry wrote:
And I can say that across about half a dozen customers that I have in
the NY Metro area, I have two that are using DB2 on Solaris (and in both
cases, they did not have DB2 on any other platform prior to Solaris).

Larry Edelstein


And I wouldn't begin to disagree with you. Of course we both know
that Solaris is not Windows and that what I wrote was:

"I've yet to run into a single instance of DB2 on Windows ... or for
that matter DB2 on non-IBM hardware"

Which part of my use of the word Windows made both you and Mark
immediately run out and decide to talk about Solaris rather than
address the reference to Windows? ... I know ... and I'm sorry I
added the second part of the sentence. But while your experience
may be valid in the NY Metro area ... it is not my experience
from any site I am aware of on the West Coast.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Nov 12 '05 #30

P: n/a
Daniel Morgan wrote (in part):
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.

Could it be that people smart enough to select DB2 are smart enough to
select an OS other than Windows? ;-)

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 20:05:00 up 8 days, 3:20, 4 users, load average: 4.08, 4.10, 3.88

Nov 12 '05 #31

P: n/a
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
Daniel Morgan wrote (in part):
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.

Could it be that people smart enough to select DB2 are smart enough to
select an OS other than Windows? ;-)


I would certainly hope so. That was certainly my experience when
I worked with DB2. Yet somewhere back a few days ago in this thead
someone was trying to make the case for DB2's great success on the
Windows platform. Why I can't imagine. Putting DB2, or for that
matter Oracle, Informix, or Sybase on Windows to me means that you
don't need to be up 7x24 and accept the fact that the machine will
be down frequently for patching and virus fighting (caveat: unless
you are one of those people that believes firewalls are fool proof).

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Nov 12 '05 #32

P: n/a
> 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.
Nov 12 '05 #33

P: n/a
Daniel,

What was your motivation in making the statement that you have never
seen DB2 on Windows? You know the answer. You were trying to disparage
DB2's presence in the distributed marketplace. And distributed means not
only Windows ... but UNIX also. That's why I answered your statement
with a personal experience with UNIX. There are pleny of customers who
run DB2 on UNIX ... who don't want to run DB2 (or any rdbms) on Windows.

Larry Edelstein

Daniel Morgan wrote:
Larry wrote:
And I can say that across about half a dozen customers that I have in
the NY Metro area, I have two that are using DB2 on Solaris (and in
both cases, they did not have DB2 on any other platform prior to
Solaris).

Larry Edelstein

And I wouldn't begin to disagree with you. Of course we both know
that Solaris is not Windows and that what I wrote was:

"I've yet to run into a single instance of DB2 on Windows ... or for
that matter DB2 on non-IBM hardware"

Which part of my use of the word Windows made both you and Mark
immediately run out and decide to talk about Solaris rather than
address the reference to Windows? ... I know ... and I'm sorry I
added the second part of the sentence. But while your experience
may be valid in the NY Metro area ... it is not my experience
from any site I am aware of on the West Coast.


Nov 12 '05 #34

P: n/a

"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1085961757.451220@yasure...
[snip]

I'll just mention that I did a stint at one of Australia's largest insurance
companies as a DB2 administrator. They used 4 NT4 servers. And there were no
AS400s or mainframes in the vicinity at the time. Which was a good 10 years
ago now.

I'm not commenting on whether that makes DB2 on Windows common or rare. Or
suggesting that this somehow invalidates your experience. Just thought I'd
share!

Regards
HJR
Nov 12 '05 #35

P: n/a
Larry wrote:
Daniel,

What was your motivation in making the statement that you have never
seen DB2 on Windows? You know the answer. You were trying to disparage
DB2's presence in the distributed marketplace. And distributed means not
only Windows ... but UNIX also. That's why I answered your statement
with a personal experience with UNIX. There are pleny of customers who
run DB2 on UNIX ... who don't want to run DB2 (or any rdbms) on Windows.

Larry Edelstein


Is paranoia a prerequisite for working with DB2 these days?

I was responding to a statement that said it was successful on that
platform by stating I'd yet to see it implemented that way once. Now
if a statement of fact is disparaging so be it.

If my experience is not the norm, as you and Mark seem to wish to
indicate ... where are the numbers? Or is asking for numbers a vicious
attack?

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Nov 12 '05 #36

P: n/a
Howard J. Rogers wrote:
"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1085961757.451220@yasure...
[snip]

I'll just mention that I did a stint at one of Australia's largest insurance
companies as a DB2 administrator. They used 4 NT4 servers. And there were no
AS400s or mainframes in the vicinity at the time. Which was a good 10 years
ago now.

I'm not commenting on whether that makes DB2 on Windows common or rare. Or
suggesting that this somehow invalidates your experience. Just thought I'd
share!

Regards
HJR


It doesn't invalidate my experience any more than my experience
invalidates yours.

All of the times I've seen DB2 have been on mainframes but then,
as you know, also in Fortune 1000 size companies which is primarily
where I ply my trade.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Nov 12 '05 #37

P: n/a

ALL RIGHT KIDS.

Enough!

Geez you guys are suckers for a decent trolling. Aren't you ashamed? If you
MUST continue this crap, please remove informix from the list of
newsgroups. - i have no idea where you are from.
Nov 12 '05 #38

P: n/a
Did I miss something?

What trolling?

"Andrew Hamm" <ah***@mail.com> wrote in message news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...

ALL RIGHT KIDS.

Enough!

Geez you guys are suckers for a decent trolling. Aren't you ashamed? If you
MUST continue this crap, please remove informix from the list of
newsgroups. - i have no idea where you are from.


Nov 12 '05 #39

P: n/a
Daniel Morgan wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
Daniel Morgan wrote (in part):
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.

Could it be that people smart enough to select DB2 are smart enough to
select an OS other than Windows? ;-)

I would certainly hope so. That was certainly my experience when
I worked with DB2. Yet somewhere back a few days ago in this thead
someone was trying to make the case for DB2's great success on the
Windows platform. Why I can't imagine. Putting DB2, or for that
matter Oracle, Informix, or Sybase on Windows to me means that you
don't need to be up 7x24 and accept the fact that the machine will
be down frequently for patching and virus fighting (caveat: unless
you are one of those people that believes firewalls are fool proof).

There is a foolproof firewall, but i am not using it.

That is the firewall that is a block of wood or plastic with two dummy
RJ-45 connectors on it.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 08:35:00 up 8 days, 15:50, 4 users, load average: 4.09, 4.09, 4.06

Nov 12 '05 #40

P: n/a

"Andrew Hamm" <ah***@mail.com> wrote
And we give a shit Because _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ?

W(hy)TF were you stupid enough to cross-post this worthless waste of
bandwidth based on meaningless numbers that have been aggregated almost out
of existence?


I actually think this is one of the better threads here. Lot of information.

rk-
Nov 12 '05 #41

P: n/a
Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 31/05/2004 5:34 AM:
Unfortunately I don't have the Gartner report (The summary used to be
free :-(, But an interesting number to look at may be tracking the
Windows share.
IBM Entered that market with DB2 V5 I believe. The Unix market was
entered with the prior release.
For being the last one entering the game I think DB2 has been doing
quite nicely :-)


Have they stopped counting all AS400 sites
as "DB2 sites" yet?

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam
Nov 12 '05 #42

P: n/a
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"
is as useless today as it was five years ago.

robert wrote:
"rkusenet" <rk******@sympatico.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 #43

P: n/a
Don't know - have they stopped counting all Back office sites as Msoft
SQL Server sites? Do Access and Foxpro still count in Microsoft's rdbms
share?

Noons wrote:
Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 31/05/2004 5:34 AM:
Unfortunately I don't have the Gartner report (The summary used to be
free :-(, But an interesting number to look at may be tracking the
Windows share.
IBM Entered that market with DB2 V5 I believe. The Unix market was
entered with the prior release.
For being the last one entering the game I think DB2 has been doing
quite nicely :-)

Have they stopped counting all AS400 sites
as "DB2 sites" yet?


Nov 12 '05 #44

P: n/a
Noons wrote:
Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 31/05/2004 5:34 AM:
Unfortunately I don't have the Gartner report (The summary used to be
free :-(, But an interesting number to look at may be tracking the
Windows share.
IBM Entered that market with DB2 V5 I believe. The Unix market was
entered with the prior release.
For being the last one entering the game I think DB2 has been doing
quite nicely :-)

Have they stopped counting all AS400 sites
as "DB2 sites" yet?

Did I talk about AS/400? I purposely referred to Unix and Windows.

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Nov 12 '05 #45

P: n/a
"Noons" <wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
news:40**********************@news.optusnet.com.au ...
Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 31/05/2004 5:34 AM:
Unfortunately I don't have the Gartner report (The summary used to be
free :-(, But an interesting number to look at may be tracking the
Windows share.
IBM Entered that market with DB2 V5 I believe. The Unix market was
entered with the prior release.
For being the last one entering the game I think DB2 has been doing
quite nicely :-)


Have they stopped counting all AS400 sites
as "DB2 sites" yet?


Well, no, most assuredly they *haven't* stopped.
Which rather makes the whole debate a complete waste of breath, doesn't it?
If wishing were reality, IBM would have all Informix users moved or moving
by now.
But in fact, even the biggest die-hard is hard-pushed to name even a
handful.
That university in Carolina, or was it California, featured on the IBM
website ... is that the only one?

But in the best traditions of the ostrich, IBM management can't see the
truth on this matter.
Nov 12 '05 #46

P: n/a
Data Goob wrote:
Did I miss something?

What trolling?

"Andrew Hamm" <ah***@mail.com> wrote in message
news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...

ALL RIGHT KIDS.

Enough!

Geez you guys are suckers for a decent trolling. Aren't you ashamed? If
you MUST continue this crap, please remove informix from the list of
newsgroups. - i have no idea where you are from.


Am think Andrew is not getting sex enough, he is very angry for mothing too
quickly.

--
Enor
Nov 12 '05 #47

P: n/a
Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 1/06/2004 4:26 AM:

Have they stopped counting all AS400 sites
as "DB2 sites" yet?

Did I talk about AS/400? I purposely referred to Unix and Windows.


I repeat: have IBM (AND Gartner) stopped counting all AS400
licenses as DB2 installations? Couldn't care less what the other
numbers are until this obvious fabrication is eliminated from their
"market share" claims.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam
Nov 12 '05 #48

P: n/a
Here we go again.

Has Oracle stopped counting UNIX or has Microsoft stopped counting SQL
Server?

Larry Edelstein

Noons wrote:
Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 1/06/2004 4:26 AM:

Have they stopped counting all AS400 sites
as "DB2 sites" yet?

Did I talk about AS/400? I purposely referred to Unix and Windows.


I repeat: have IBM (AND Gartner) stopped counting all AS400
licenses as DB2 installations? Couldn't care less what the other
numbers are until this obvious fabrication is eliminated from their
"market share" claims.


Nov 12 '05 #49

P: n/a
Here we go again.

Has Oracle stopped counting UNIX or has Microsoft stopped counting Windows?

Larry Edelstein

Noons wrote:
Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 1/06/2004 4:26 AM:

Have they stopped counting all AS400 sites
as "DB2 sites" yet?

Did I talk about AS/400? I purposely referred to Unix and Windows.


I repeat: have IBM (AND Gartner) stopped counting all AS400
licenses as DB2 installations? Couldn't care less what the other
numbers are until this obvious fabrication is eliminated from their
"market share" claims.


Nov 12 '05 #50

346 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.