346  16282 
Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1085961757.451220@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.
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
Larry wrote: Here we go again.
Has Oracle stopped counting UNIX or has Microsoft stopped counting SQL
Server?
Larry Edelstein
I'd sure like to have your message translated into English. Last time
I looked, and it was just a few minutes ago, Oracle didn't sell UNIX.
If you truly believe that Oracle is counted every UNIX installation as
a database customer ... like IBM counts every AS400 as a DB2 customer.
You are drinking something far stronger than the Laphroaig I'm sipping.
--
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)
One of the reasons we write applications is to transform data based on
rules, events and data input.
The data maintain state of something at a certain time and the state
can be used to extract information, the most simple one being the
direct mapping between logical state definition and it's presentation
for a user (the balance of an account inquired by the holder).
Databases help us to maintain state, as could the working storage (an
old Cobol terminology) of a forever running transformer (computer).
But for the moment, transformer independent techniques are most of the
time used to maintain state, we use mainly databases for it.
Copybooks or database includes are just part of the techniques used to
build programs. I would not judge a database (vendor)on how the
transformers are build by it's users/customers. Neither would I
conclude that IT-shops using "copybooks" don't know on how to make
thorough usage of their database and push it to it's limits, trying
beyond, influencing "the future of relational databases".
Bernard Dhooghe
What is the best way to understand the gn*****@rcn.com (robert) wrote in message news:<da**************************@posting.google. com>... "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
Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 2/06/2004 2:18 AM: Here we go again.
Yes. for as long as those cretin claims continue...
Has Oracle stopped counting UNIX or has Microsoft stopped counting Windows?
Why should they?
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam
Daniel Morgan allegedly said,on my timestamp of 2/06/2004 3:38 PM: You are drinking something far stronger than the Laphroaig I'm sipping.
Your very good health!
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam
For the same reason that you want IBM to stop counting DB2 on AS/400.
Larry
Noons wrote: Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 2/06/2004 2:18 AM:
Here we go again.
Yes. for as long as those cretin claims continue...
Has Oracle stopped counting UNIX or has Microsoft stopped counting
Windows?
Why should they?
Larry wrote: For the same reason that you want IBM to stop counting DB2 on AS/400.
Larry
Noons wrote: Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 2/06/2004 2:18 AM:
Here we go again.
Yes. for as long as those cretin claims continue...
Has Oracle stopped counting UNIX or has Microsoft stopped counting
Windows?
Why should they?
I think Noons' point is that it's unfair to compare Oracle (Linux,
Unix, Windows) against DB2 (Linux, Unix, Windows, AS/400) since the
domains are different.
Larry wonders why it's fair, using the same logic, to compare Oracle
(Linux, Unix, Windows) against MS SQL Server (Windows) since the
domains are different.
Of course, neither one makes sense. While some companies do constrain
their spending to certain platforms (all-MS shop running Windows,
all-HP, all-Sun, all-IBM, etc.), I would think that most database-using
shops are simply trying to store and retrieve data. As long as that
works, the platform in use is only of as much interest as their budget
allows (i.e., a budget of $20,000 isn't going to get an AS/400!).
If they go out and purchase some hardware running DB2, or Oracle, or
SQL Server, that's what they bought. So it counts for that product.
Noons' second point is that all AS/400 users are counted as DB2
customers whether they use it or not. Sorta like all Windows users are
counted as IE users, for example. However, what Noons has not proven,
or even attempted to demonstrate, is that this is a significant
distortion of the reality. Fact is that they did buy DB2, although
reality may be that they didn't want to. But is that a significant
portion of the AS/400 market as to render it misleading?
Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 3/06/2004 9:57 AM: For the same reason that you want IBM to stop counting DB2 on AS/400.
You wouldn't be smart enough to fathom the difference...
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam
Darin McBride allegedly said,on my timestamp of 3/06/2004 10:18 AM: I think Noons' point is that it's unfair to compare Oracle (Linux,
Unix, Windows) against DB2 (Linux, Unix, Windows, AS/400) since the
domains are different.
Nope.
Larry wonders why it's fair, using the same logic, to compare Oracle
(Linux, Unix, Windows) against MS SQL Server (Windows) since the
domains are different.
Nope.
all-HP, all-Sun, all-IBM, etc.), I would think that most database-using
shops are simply trying to store and retrieve data. As long as that
works, the platform in use is only of as much interest as their budget
allows (i.e., a budget of $20,000 isn't going to get an AS/400!).
So, if you are using a AS400 to run RPG applications inherited
from your 20 year old System 36, WTF is IBM counting THAT
as a DB2 license?
If they go out and purchase some hardware running DB2, or Oracle, or
SQL Server, that's what they bought. So it counts for that product.
Sure. the problem is that IBM is counting ALL (let me see if you can
grasp the difference: I said ALL, it means THE TOTALITY OF) AS400 sites
as DB2 sites. Which they are NOT, NEVER were and NEVER will be.
counted as IE users, for example. However, what Noons has not proven,
or even attempted to demonstrate, is that this is a significant
distortion of the reality. Fact is that they did buy DB2, although
reality may be that they didn't want to. But is that a significant
portion of the AS/400 market as to render it misleading?
Yes. ALL AS400 sites IS a "significant portion of the AS400 market",
in case you have not noticed?
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam
And perhaps you don't understand what relevance market share really has.
Think of your everyday activities. Do you rent compact cars from Hertz
because they have the largest market share of compact rental cars? Do
you fly American Airlines in the US because they might have the largest
market share within the US? Do you dismiss Honda and Nissan and
purchase a Toyota SUV because they might have the largest SUV market share?
You are making an issue out of a non-issue because of your obvious
biases. Go ahead. The rest of the group can see right through it.
Larry Edelstein
Noons wrote: Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 3/06/2004 9:57 AM:
For the same reason that you want IBM to stop counting DB2 on AS/400.
You wouldn't be smart enough to fathom the difference...
Noons wrote: Darin McBride allegedly said,on my timestamp of 3/06/2004 10:18 AM:
I think Noons' point is that it's unfair to compare Oracle (Linux,
Unix, Windows) against DB2 (Linux, Unix, Windows, AS/400) since the
domains are different.
Nope.
Then, please ... explain in plain English for us obvious idiots. Larry wonders why it's fair, using the same logic, to compare Oracle
(Linux, Unix, Windows) against MS SQL Server (Windows) since the
domains are different.
Nope.
Oh, I'm pretty sure that's Larry's question, based on the fact that the
above is your implied (but not intended, it seems) point. all-HP, all-Sun, all-IBM, etc.), I would think that most database-using
shops are simply trying to store and retrieve data. As long as that
works, the platform in use is only of as much interest as their budget
allows (i.e., a budget of $20,000 isn't going to get an AS/400!).
So, if you are using a AS400 to run RPG applications inherited
from your 20 year old System 36, WTF is IBM counting THAT
as a DB2 license?
Is this a significant portion of the AS/400 market? If they go out and purchase some hardware running DB2, or Oracle, or
SQL Server, that's what they bought. So it counts for that product.
Sure. the problem is that IBM is counting ALL (let me see if you can
grasp the difference: I said ALL, it means THE TOTALITY OF) AS400 sites
as DB2 sites. Which they are NOT, NEVER were and NEVER will be.
Again - is that significantly different than the reality of how many
AS/400 sites are actually using the DB2 that comes with AS/400? counted as IE users, for example. However, what Noons has not proven,
or even attempted to demonstrate, is that this is a significant
distortion of the reality. Fact is that they did buy DB2, although
reality may be that they didn't want to. But is that a significant
portion of the AS/400 market as to render it misleading?
Yes. ALL AS400 sites IS a "significant portion of the AS400 market",
in case you have not noticed?
You're answering my question backwards. I'm asking about the portion
of the AS/400 market which IBM is incorrectly claiming uses DB2. Is
THAT portion significant? I'm not asking if IBM's claim is significant
- you may think I'm stupid, but I'm not that stupid. That it is the
entire AS/400 market is obvious.
We're talking about statistical significance here. We have three
numbers we're dealing with:
1. The totality of the AS/400 market.
2. The subset of #1 which is actually using DB2, or, in reverse,
the subset of #1 which is actually not using DB2. Obviously,
one of these implies the other.
3. The overall DB2 market.
The questions are:
a) What is the ratio of 2:1? Is it statistically significant? If it
is 50%, then that may be significant. If it's 95%, then we're just
blowing a lot of smoke over nothing.
b) What is the ration of 2:3? Is this statistically significant? If
we're changing IBM's numbers by removing AS/400 users that don't
actually use DB2 from 37.6% to 37%, why are we having this argument?
c) Regardless of what the ratios are, it is obvious to the rest of us
that you cannot be honest if you are asking to remove the entire AS/400
market. Honesty would require removing only the portion of the AS/400
market which is not actually using DB2, whatever that may be. You must
concede, however, that doing that is not easy. It may be the most
honest method of reporting, but it is not easy to do. A customer may
buy an AS/400 not intending to use DB2, and then do so anyway (they are
licensed to do it afterall). Or a customer may purchase Oracle for HP
and then the project is cancelled - discounting this from Oracle's
numbers is not going to be any easier. It would mean going to each
vendor's customers, and verifying that each one is using what they paid
for. Definitely honest, but is it going to produce significantly
different numbers that would justify the expense?
I doubt it.
"scottishpoet" <dr*******@yahoo.com> wrote In the UNIX segment of the database market, Gartner said sales fell
5.9% to $2.34 billion last year as most of the leading vendors
declined. Oracle's new license sales fell 8.3% to $1.34 billion, or
57.4% share; while IBM's sales fell 5.8% to $586.5 million, or 25.1%
share.
Informix's total new license sales in 2003 was 140 million.
Even assuming that all of those 140 million is on Unix,
it means sales of Db2 on unix has overtaken Informix.
Interesting. Only last year or so I read that Informix was
still outselling Db2 in Unix despite step child treatment
by IBM.
"Darin McBride" <dm******@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message
news:A7uvc.653216$Ig.357895@pd7tw2no... Noons' second point is that all AS/400 users are counted as DB2
customers whether they use it or not. Sorta like all Windows users are
counted as IE users, for example. However, what Noons has not proven,
or even attempted to demonstrate, is that this is a significant
distortion of the reality. Fact is that they did buy DB2, although
reality may be that they didn't want to. But is that a significant
portion of the AS/400 market as to render it misleading?
In my (somewhat limited) experience, it is *hugely* misleading.
Blair Adamache wrote: 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.
MySQL is not necessarily freeware : it is available under two licences
(commercial and open source). Which one you choose depends on what you
intend to do with the database.
It still has some way to go to compete with the "big players", but similar
to the GNU/Linux operating system, progress is happening rapidly.
And I think it would surprise everyone to find out how many copies of MySQL
are being used in anger around the world.
And "market share" of a database you can get for free is extremely difficult
to measure using traditional methods. It's the same with Linux : the
"market share" of Linux servers is tiny, especially when measured in
dollars spent on buying shrink wrapped software. The Apache web server is
another case in point : if we were to measure "market share" of Apache in
terms of dollars spent in buying it then it would be nowhere. However a
quick glance at Netcraft will show you that around 70% of the active
websites in the world are being served by Apache.
Phil
Darin McBride <dm******@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message news:<5JGvc.659814$Ig.278119@pd7tw2no>... I think Noons' point is that it's unfair to compare Oracle (Linux,
Unix, Windows) against DB2 (Linux, Unix, Windows, AS/400) since the
domains are different.
Nope.
Then, please ... explain in plain English for us obvious idiots.
OK, I'll try again, this time with small words, it may be easier.
"IBM can not claim as DB2 licenses all their AS400 sites.
They are not. And to bundle them ALL in ANY market analysis
of DB2 is totally misleading and downright stupid."
Is this a significant portion of the AS/400 market?
<sigh>
You're answering my question backwards. I'm asking about the portion
of the AS/400 market which IBM is incorrectly claiming uses DB2. Is
THAT portion significant? I'm not asking if IBM's claim is significant
- you may think I'm stupid, but I'm not that stupid. That it is the
entire AS/400 market is obvious.
IBM's incorrect claim IS the point. Not if the AS400 market is
significant.
And BTW: it is. In case you have not noticed, the AS400
is still in numbers the largest installed base of any type
of IBM system. Although they will never openly admit to it.
a) What is the ratio of 2:1? Is it statistically significant? If it
No. The question is not that. The question is that REGARDLESS
of that percentage, IBM is claiming it as 100%. Spot the difference?
b) What is the ration of 2:3? Is this statistically significant? If
we're changing IBM's numbers by removing AS/400 users that don't
actually use DB2 from 37.6% to 37%, why are we having this argument?
We are changing NOTHING. IBM is the one that has to change their
incorrect numbers. Got it?
c) Regardless of what the ratios are, it is obvious to the rest of us
that you cannot be honest if you are asking to remove the entire AS/400
market.
Don't try the semantics bullshit here, moron. It is IBM
that is NOT being honest! Don't even try the opposite!
Honesty would require removing only the portion of the AS/400
market which is not actually using DB2, whatever that may be.
Thank you for admitting IBM is NOT being honest.
WTF doesn't IBM do it?
You must
concede, however, that doing that is not easy.
Yes it is.
honest method of reporting, but it is not easy to do. A customer may
buy an AS/400 not intending to use DB2, and then do so anyway (they are
licensed to do it afterall).
No. Cite one.
Or a customer may purchase Oracle for HP
and then the project is cancelled - discounting this from Oracle's
numbers is not going to be any easier.
Cite one.
It would mean going to each
vendor's customers, and verifying that each one is using what they paid
for. Definitely honest, but is it going to produce significantly
different numbers that would justify the expense?
Yes. Ask IBM to provide the numbers: they have
them.
I doubt it.
That is why the Gartner "numbers" are widely derided:
the lightness with which they make incorrect assumptions
about "markets" and the lightness with which they'll accept
ANY claims from ANY maker, proportional to the cachet that
accompanies such claims.
Cheers
Nuno Souto wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam
Noons wrote: Darin McBride <dm******@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message
news:<5JGvc.659814$Ig.278119@pd7tw2no>... >> I think Noons' point is that it's unfair to compare Oracle (Linux,
>> Unix, Windows) against DB2 (Linux, Unix, Windows, AS/400) since the
>> domains are different.
>
> Nope.
Then, please ... explain in plain English for us obvious idiots.
OK, I'll try again, this time with small words, it may be easier.
Maybe if you calm down a bit, treat everyone as human beings rather
than electronic targets, you might have a longer life...
"IBM can not claim as DB2 licenses all their AS400 sites.
They are not. And to bundle them ALL in ANY market analysis
of DB2 is totally misleading and downright stupid."
I would disagree with "totally". As for "downright stupid", answering
one less-than-honest statement with another should qualify. Further, I
doubt that any other vendor gets 100% honest marks, either. Is this a significant portion of the AS/400 market?
<sigh>
I'll take that as an "I don't know." You're answering my question backwards. I'm asking about the portion
of the AS/400 market which IBM is incorrectly claiming uses DB2. Is
THAT portion significant? I'm not asking if IBM's claim is significant
- you may think I'm stupid, but I'm not that stupid. That it is the
entire AS/400 market is obvious.
IBM's incorrect claim IS the point. Not if the AS400 market is
significant.
And BTW: it is. In case you have not noticed, the AS400
is still in numbers the largest installed base of any type
of IBM system. Although they will never openly admit to it.
But is that a significant portion of the DB2 market? You keep going
around the statement, trying to focus on one small piece - missing the
forest for ... a single tree, I think. "Look, IBM has a huge forest of
pine!" Gartner says. You say "There are two elms in there." And then
the point is? a) What is the ratio of 2:1? Is it statistically significant? If it
No. The question is not that. The question is that REGARDLESS
of that percentage, IBM is claiming it as 100%. Spot the difference?
Sorry, let me rephrase that.
*MY* question is that. I want to know if you're making a mountain out
of a molehill or not. I want to know how much Gartner's (and IBM's)
numbers are out of whack in reality, not in some small microcosm of the
stats. b) What is the ration of 2:3? Is this statistically significant? If
we're changing IBM's numbers by removing AS/400 users that don't
actually use DB2 from 37.6% to 37%, why are we having this argument?
We are changing NOTHING. IBM is the one that has to change their
incorrect numbers. Got it?
Not really. I'm still trying to figure out if the difference, if the
numbers were 100% accurate for all vendors, would actually make any
difference to the overall meaning. And if anyone cares about the
difference. IBM at 35.7% becomes 35%. Oracle at 32.6% becomes 32.5%.
Given a 3.1% difference becomes 2.5% - neither one is statistically
compelling anyway. Why get all worked up about it? c) Regardless of what the ratios are, it is obvious to the rest of us
that you cannot be honest if you are asking to remove the entire AS/400
market.
Don't try the semantics bullshit here, moron. It is IBM
that is NOT being honest! Don't even try the opposite!
I'm glad to see you're in a chipper mood. You can't fix one dishonesty
with another one. I'm not saying that what Gartner gives out is
something I'd stake money on. I'm merely saying that it's in a
ballpark that is wrong for everyone, but close enough to take with a
reasonable (non-life-threatening) amount of salt. Honesty would require removing only the portion of the AS/400
market which is not actually using DB2, whatever that may be.
Thank you for admitting IBM is NOT being honest.
WTF doesn't IBM do it?
Cost vs benefit, like any business. You must
concede, however, that doing that is not easy.
Yes it is.
Ok, I suppose you don't have to. You haven't been reasonable so far in
this thread, so why start now? honest method of reporting, but it is not easy to do. A customer may
buy an AS/400 not intending to use DB2, and then do so anyway (they are
licensed to do it afterall).
No. Cite one.
You're the one making wild claims about Gartner's credibility without
citing absolutely anything to back it up. Why should I start citing
anything in reverse? I'm not going to do your homework for you. Or a customer may purchase Oracle for HP
and then the project is cancelled - discounting this from Oracle's
numbers is not going to be any easier.
Cite one.
I did say "may" on both counts. It would mean going to each
vendor's customers, and verifying that each one is using what they paid
for. Definitely honest, but is it going to produce significantly
different numbers that would justify the expense?
Yes. Ask IBM to provide the numbers: they have
them.
I highly doubt it. Most customers won't divulge that type of
information. I know that if I were a CIO somewhere with databases all
over the place, I wouldn't tell my vendors what I was doing with it
without some sort of subpoena. I'm sure others are more forthcoming,
and may only require an NDA ... I doubt it.
That is why the Gartner "numbers" are widely derided:
the lightness with which they make incorrect assumptions
about "markets" and the lightness with which they'll accept
ANY claims from ANY maker, proportional to the cachet that
accompanies such claims.
I never said anything about Gartner having accurate numbers. Merely
close enough for statistical purposes, with the proper condiments at
the ready.
Darin McBride allegedly said,on my timestamp of 4/06/2004 1:49 PM:
Maybe if you calm down a bit, treat everyone as human beings rather
than electronic targets, you might have a longer life...
I'm purrfectly calm and my life HAS been long so far. :)
one less-than-honest statement with another should qualify. Further, I
doubt that any other vendor gets 100% honest marks, either.
So what? Two wrongs does not a right make.
I'll take that as an "I don't know."
<sigh>
But is that a significant portion of the DB2 market? You keep going
around the statement, trying to focus on one small piece - missing the
forest for ... a single tree, I think. "Look, IBM has a huge forest of
pine!" Gartner says. You say "There are two elms in there." And then
the point is?
The point is this: UNTIL IBM provides detailed information about
the forest and its trees, ANY attempt to classify their wild
unsubstantiated claims as "market information" is nothing more
nothing less than an exercise in futility. There is NO SUCH THING
as "DB2 has this or that percentage of market" while IBM insists on
providing numbers that are unsubstantiated, unrealistic, unverifiable,
incomplete and blatantly wrong for anyone who has been in this industry
for longer than ten minutes.
*MY* question is that. I want to know if you're making a mountain out
of a molehill or not. I want to know how much Gartner's (and IBM's)
numbers are out of whack in reality, not in some small microcosm of the
stats.
Ask them. THEY are the ones providing the unverifiable, unrealistic
and just plain incorrect statistics. Like trying to establish a
percentage of market for a product based on its "significant presence"
in THREE platforms when it is well known to only exist in any significant
numbers in ONE platform.
Cost vs benefit, like any business.
Nargh. Cost versus marketing bullshit value.
And people like Gartner who should be minimally responsible, go ahead
and base their "analysis" on this crud.
Ok, I suppose you don't have to. You haven't been reasonable so far in
this thread, so why start now?
Reason is relative.
You're the one making wild claims about Gartner's credibility without
citing absolutely anything to back it up. Why should I start citing
anything in reverse? I'm not going to do your homework for you.
YOU stated I was wrong by saying there exist cases of your wild claim.
I asked you to cite one. It's you that has to provide the data.
I cited very clearly that Gartner is wrong because they are taking figures that
cannot be substantiated or they have NEVER substantiated and accepting them
on face value. Without so much as even a disclaimer that the figures are not
verified or verifiable.
I highly doubt it. Most customers won't divulge that type of
information. I know that if I were a CIO somewhere with databases all
over the place, I wouldn't tell my vendors what I was doing with it
without some sort of subpoena. I'm sure others are more forthcoming,
and may only require an NDA ...
I don't give a hoot what you are doing with them. What database
you use has got no bearing whatsoever on what you do with it and is in no way
shape or format "hidden" information. Never was.
I never said anything about Gartner having accurate numbers. Merely
close enough for statistical purposes, with the proper condiments at
the ready.
No. Statistical analysis presumes some reliability of data or else disclosure of
any unknown base values. Neither was assured by Gartner. Which makes anything
they say next to useless.
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam
Noons wrote: Darin McBride allegedly said,on my timestamp of 4/06/2004 1:49 PM:
Maybe if you calm down a bit, treat everyone as human beings rather
than electronic targets, you might have a longer life...
I'm purrfectly calm and my life HAS been long so far. :)
You are calm like my woman. We have no dish in house any more. She also
argue like you. You are woman?
--
Enor
If I were an Informix customer who just could not live without
Informix, it would be most interesting to know what the future
holds for those customers. Last I heard Informix only had 3%
of the market, similar to many other niche database markets.
It may be a great database, but in the final analysis it is
totally irrelevant when compared to what DB2, Oracle, and MS-SQL
are doing. If your statement is true, 140 million is indeed a
lot of money, but compared with over 2 billion in revenue for
DB2 it is not. It looks like side money. Is it really sensible
for IBM to spend any kind of effort on a product that brings
in little more than 5% of its database revenue? I would think
staying with Informix and its certain death would get people
interested in the future. Technically speaking, most of the white
papers I've read point to DB2 as the clear winner in just about
every single category and puzzling why anyone here would even consider
Oracle or MS. The one area of relevance that Informix **does**
bring to the table is that DB2 will be incorporating many Informix
features. If I were an Informix customer I would consider that
good news, but it doesn't look like that here, it looks like a
bunch of sour grapes for Informix peoples.
"rkusenet" <rk******@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...
"scottishpoet" <dr*******@yahoo.com> wrote In the UNIX segment of the database market, Gartner said sales fell
5.9% to $2.34 billion last year as most of the leading vendors
declined. Oracle's new license sales fell 8.3% to $1.34 billion, or
57.4% share; while IBM's sales fell 5.8% to $586.5 million, or 25.1%
share.
Informix's total new license sales in 2003 was 140 million.
Even assuming that all of those 140 million is on Unix,
it means sales of Db2 on unix has overtaken Informix.
Interesting. Only last year or so I read that Informix was
still outselling Db2 in Unix despite step child treatment
by IBM.
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<cq*****************@news.uswest.net>... "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.
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
Larry <La***@nospam.net> 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******@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
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
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<c9***************@news.uswest.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.
bu*********@yahoo.com (Buck Nuggets) wrote in message news:<66**************************@posting.google. com>... Daniel Morgan <da******@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1085961757.451220@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
Blair Adamache <ba*******@2muchspam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c9**********@hanover.torolab.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******@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
> > > 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?
> 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.
..yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c9**********@hanover.torolab.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).
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.net> 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******@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
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
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<c9***************@news.uswest.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? wi*******@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message news:<73**************************@posting.google. com>... Darin McBride <dm******@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message news:<5JGvc.659814$Ig.278119@pd7tw2no>... Honesty would require removing only the portion of the AS/400
market which is not actually using DB2, whatever that may be.
Thank you for admitting IBM is NOT being honest.
WTF doesn't IBM do it?
You must
concede, however, that doing that is not easy.
Yes it is.
How can it be easy without quantification?
honest method of reporting, but it is not easy to do. A customer may
buy an AS/400 not intending to use DB2, and then do so anyway (they are
licensed to do it afterall).
No. Cite one.
Or a customer may purchase Oracle for HP
and then the project is cancelled - discounting this from Oracle's
numbers is not going to be any easier.
Cite one.
Did you notice a sig I posted a couple of days ago regarding Sony? I
know of 2 there (although I can't recall if it was HP or another
platform). Such things can be expected, and can be difficult to
quantify. And I know personally of a couple of other cases local to
me where a company was buying stuff and then got aquired, mooting the
project. And even some government projects that spent the capital
budget on hardware and licenses only to have the contractor never
deliver the app. And I'm quite sure this is far too common.
It would mean going to each
vendor's customers, and verifying that each one is using what they paid
for. Definitely honest, but is it going to produce significantly
different numbers that would justify the expense?
Yes. Ask IBM to provide the numbers: they have
them.
I have a bit of trouble with this. I haven't had any exposure to
AS400, but I've seen other vendors older machines where the vendors
have no idea what is being used unless there is a support call, and
with mature installations there may not be many of those. What would
make IBM any different (at least since the 1956 consent agreement :-)?
And I've seen O installations that have lapsed support, O doesn't
know about them until someone like me comes in and says "ummmm..."
I'm sure there is plenty that IBM is not telling, but I'm not so sure
we can divine exactly what that is.
I doubt it.
That is why the Gartner "numbers" are widely derided:
the lightness with which they make incorrect assumptions
about "markets" and the lightness with which they'll accept
ANY claims from ANY maker, proportional to the cachet that
accompanies such claims.
Agreed.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus. "Researchers have found some people who always
tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, regardless of the
outcome. They tend to have limited and difficult social lives." http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont..._1c3lying.html
> 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?
They are not the same code base.
- DB2/400 is one code base (Oracle doesn't support that platform)
- DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows is another code base
- DB2 for OS/390 and z/OS is another code base (Oracle has a product on this
platform, but it performs poorly compared to DB2 - because it shares the
codebase of its other products, and most customers hardly ever use it even
if it is installed).
So among these three platform groups, Oracle is only widely used on one of
them (Linux, UNIX ,and Windows) where DB2 does have the same codebase. Also
note that DB2 for Linux runs on IBM mainframes (same code base as DB2 for
Linux, UNIX, and Windows).
> > That is why the Gartner "numbers" are widely derided:
the lightness with which they make incorrect assumptions
about "markets" and the lightness with which they'll accept
ANY claims from ANY maker, proportional to the cachet that
accompanies such claims.
Agreed.
jg
There are numbers published by someone on market share per operating system.
I don't know if they are from Gartner or someone else.
I still don't understand the relevance of the market share argument is,
assuming that the market share is large enough to guarantee the product will
around for a long time. Obviously this is not an issue with DB2, Oracle, or
SQL Server, but might be for Sybase and Informix.
The fact is that Oracle was first to market (of the top 3) with a good
product on midrange operating systems. They built a large installed base
because of that. The Oracle market share has been dropping, especially on
new installations, as MS and IBM have improved their DBMS products.
"robert" <gn*****@rcn.com> schreef in bericht
news:da*************************@posting.google.co m... "Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:<c9***************@news.uswest.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:
Oracle is oracle is oracle?
Why then does Oracle publish, next to their general documentation, also
quite a few manuals specifically for Oracle on OS/390 ?
<snip>
> > so far as i know, oracle is oracle is oracle, no matter the platform. not so for DB2:
Oracle is oracle is oracle?
Why then does Oracle publish, next to their general documentation, also
quite a few manuals specifically for Oracle on OS/390 ?
Oracle on OS/390 is basically the same codebase as the other Oracle
platforms. Which is the reason that it works so poorly on OS/390 and few of
the companies who have it installed use it for production applications.
Then why do companies (over 500) buy Oracle for OS/390 if it works so poorly
compared to DB2 for OS/390. One consultant told me: "For the same reason
that people buy pet rocks."
Precisely! The case is made that different code bases is actually
better! You've got to have different exploitative code on each platform.
And what really counts? From an application perspective, they are highly
portable. DDL and DML compatibility are (last I heard) > 97% (and DDL
must be slightly different between platforms to account for the
differing storage constructs between them, e.g.).
So ... no ... they are not from 1 code base ... but it's the next best
thing ... they are close. Close and at the same time highly optimized
for each platform. All things considered, pretty darn good considering
that these are requirements that conflict with each other.
Larry Edelstein
Mark A wrote: 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?
They are not the same code base.
- DB2/400 is one code base (Oracle doesn't support that platform)
- DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows is another code base
- DB2 for OS/390 and z/OS is another code base (Oracle has a product on this
platform, but it performs poorly compared to DB2 - because it shares the
codebase of its other products, and most customers hardly ever use it even
if it is installed).
So among these three platform groups, Oracle is only widely used on one of
them (Linux, UNIX ,and Windows) where DB2 does have the same codebase. Also
note that DB2 for Linux runs on IBM mainframes (same code base as DB2 for
Linux, UNIX, and Windows).
You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site
about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to
IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find?
"IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last
release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390
2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS
1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS
1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3
will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4
will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the
end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. "
Does Informix run on OS/390?
I would think this a match made in heaven...
:-)
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:E8****************@news.uswest.net... so far as i know, oracle is oracle is oracle, no matter the platform.
not so for DB2:
Oracle is oracle is oracle?
Why then does Oracle publish, next to their general documentation, also
quite a few manuals specifically for Oracle on OS/390 ?
Oracle on OS/390 is basically the same codebase as the other Oracle
platforms. Which is the reason that it works so poorly on OS/390 and few of
the companies who have it installed use it for production applications.
Then why do companies (over 500) buy Oracle for OS/390 if it works so poorly
compared to DB2 for OS/390. One consultant told me: "For the same reason
that people buy pet rocks."
"Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7*****************@fe42.usenetserver.com... You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site
about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to
IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find?
"IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last
release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390
2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS
1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS
1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3
will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4
will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the
end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. "
Does Informix run on OS/390?
I would think this a match made in heaven...
:-)
Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It
is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform
as a server to web clients.
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:ie****************@news.uswest.net... "Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7*****************@fe42.usenetserver.com... You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site
about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to
IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find?
"IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last
release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390
2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS
1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS
1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3
will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4
will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the
end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. "
Does Informix run on OS/390?
I would think this a match made in heaven...
:-)
Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It
is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform
as a server to web clients.
OMG. Are you human? Just kidding! Seriously, is there something about
this platform that is compelling enough to consider it instead of doing things
on Linux or UNIX? Is z/OS a growth market or just something gradually
disappearing?
> > Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by
z/OS. It is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to
perform as a server to web clients.
OMG. Are you human? Just kidding! Seriously, is there something about
this platform that is compelling enough to consider it instead of doing
things on Linux or UNIX? Is z/OS a growth market or just something gradually
disappearing?
The operating system and much of the system software on it is much more
stable than Linux or UNIX, which is why many large enterprises rely on it
for critical applications like banking, reservations, and other critical
applications. Actually the IBM mainframe boxes themselves run Linux or z/OS.
I don't think it is a growth market, nor is it disappearing. The mainframe
prices keep decreasing, and UNIX boxes get more sophisticated and more
expensive. So eventually it will probably just come down to which operating
system you want to use.
People get too hung-up on the past, and on the names of things. An IBM
mainframe is just a box, that runs an operating system, and can run local
application or with remote clients (including web clients). Things change.
It's hard to believe you'd be seriously asking this question. I can
guarantee you that something you did within the past week (if not
multiple things) touched an OS/390 or Z/os application. Banking, credit
card, airline or car rental reservations system, the list goes on and on.
Larry Edelstein
Data Goob wrote: "Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:ie****************@news.uswest.net...
"Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7*****************@fe42.usenetserver.com.. .
You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site
about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to
IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find?
"IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last
release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390
2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS
1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS
1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3
will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4
will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the
end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. "
Does Informix run on OS/390?
I would think this a match made in heaven...
:-)
Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It
is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform
as a server to web clients.
OMG. Are you human? Just kidding! Seriously, is there something about
this platform that is compelling enough to consider it instead of doing things
on Linux or UNIX? Is z/OS a growth market or just something gradually
disappearing?
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:or****************@news.uswest.net...
The operating system and much of the system software on it is much more
stable than Linux or UNIX, which is why many large enterprises rely on it
for critical applications like banking, reservations, and other critical
applications. Actually the IBM mainframe boxes themselves run Linux or z/OS.
When did this occur? I thought mainframes ran VM.
I don't think it is a growth market, nor is it disappearing. The mainframe
prices keep decreasing, and UNIX boxes get more sophisticated and more
expensive. So eventually it will probably just come down to which operating
system you want to use.
Hmmm. Interesting.
People get too hung-up on the past, and on the names of things. An IBM
mainframe is just a box, that runs an operating system, and can run local
application or with remote clients (including web clients). Things change.
( runs around to catch him leaving and makes him stop )
Isn't VM considered one of the best OS's out there? Isn't that the OS
on OS/390, or is it another name--guess I'm too much away from mainframe
systems?
But imagine this for a moment, Dieing database product hooks up with
dieing hardware platform. I mean seriously, it would be interesting to see
Informix and z/OS come together in an Open Source project of some kind.
Like start out with just putting Informix SE on z/OS. WTF they're both
dying animals, give it a shot.
> "Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:or****************@news.uswest.net...
The operating system and much of the system software on it is much more
stable than Linux or UNIX, which is why many large enterprises rely on
it for critical applications like banking, reservations, and other critical
applications. Actually the IBM mainframe boxes themselves run Linux or
z/OS.
When did this occur? I thought mainframes ran VM.
I don't think it is a growth market, nor is it disappearing. The
mainframe prices keep decreasing, and UNIX boxes get more sophisticated and more
expensive. So eventually it will probably just come down to which
operating system you want to use.
Hmmm. Interesting.
People get too hung-up on the past, and on the names of things. An IBM
mainframe is just a box, that runs an operating system, and can run
local application or with remote clients (including web clients). Things
change.
( runs around to catch him leaving and makes him stop )
Isn't VM considered one of the best OS's out there? Isn't that the OS
on OS/390, or is it another name--guess I'm too much away from mainframe
systems?
But imagine this for a moment, Dieing database product hooks up with
dieing hardware platform. I mean seriously, it would be interesting to see
Informix and z/OS come together in an Open Source project of some kind.
Like start out with just putting Informix SE on z/OS. WTF they're both
dying animals, give it a shot.
OS/390 (previously known as MVS) is the operations system, not the hardware.
I don't know what they call the boxes these days (which also run Linux).
Yes the mainframe boxes do also run VM, but usually not for critical
applications. VM (virtual machine) was originally created as operating
system that could logically partition a box and run multiple different
operating systems underneath it for testing purposes. Somehow it began to be
used for certain interactive applications, but is not considered to be
anywhere near the equal of MVS or OS/390.
VSE is another old operating system that may still be around (I am not sure)
that runs on mainframes. It was used by many small companies who did need
the sophistication of MVS/OS390.
Some airline reservation systems still run TPF operating system that was
specifically designed for extremely high volume transactions. I am sure it
being phased out, because it very expensive to find people to maintain the
applications, which are written in assembler code and a proprietary built-in
database product.
At one time IBM was selling PC's that ran MVS/OS390 for software developers.
It is perfectly conceivable that it could happen again.
Why would my question not be serious?
I find the whole IBM landscape somewhat comical yet
daunting. Lots of achievement and lots of angst
over appearing too proud. On the flip side there
is Oracle, with a lot of strutting around like a
peacock, with totally undeserving value run by a
pompous self-absorbed self-serving megalomaniac
full of arrogance. But I'm getting redundant, and
digress. There is a whole generation of computer
users who will never see a mainframe, AS/400, OS/390,
etc. etc. The fact that they won't know the value
of old, big iron systems doesn't make them bad, it
just means that a whole new generation of IT
professionals are going to solve business problems
outside the mainframe space, and would never even
begin to consider them, instead trying to make Linux
and Windows work faster and more efficiently. I'm
simply asking questions about mainframes because I
simply don't have a clue about that market, and find
it curious that those that do, think that counting DB2
on AS/400 is irrelevant or lies when it is clear that
they really don't know jack about the DB2 market.
Anyway, I remain curious about some kind of hidden
value in the mainframe space that cannot be found in
the Linux or Windows space. Enlighten me.
"Larry" <La***@nospam.net> wrote in message news:dy*****************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net.. . It's hard to believe you'd be seriously asking this question. I can
guarantee you that something you did within the past week (if not
multiple things) touched an OS/390 or Z/os application. Banking, credit
card, airline or car rental reservations system, the list goes on and on.
Larry Edelstein
Data Goob wrote: "Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:ie****************@news.uswest.net...
"Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7*****************@fe42.usenetserver.com.. .
You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site
about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to
IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find?
"IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last
release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390
2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS
1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS
1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3
will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4
will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the
end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. "
Does Informix run on OS/390?
I would think this a match made in heaven...
:-)
Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It
is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform
as a server to web clients.
OMG. Are you human? Just kidding! Seriously, is there something about
this platform that is compelling enough to consider it instead of doing things
on Linux or UNIX? Is z/OS a growth market or just something gradually
disappearing?
"Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BV****************@fe41.usenetserver.com... Why would my question not be serious?
I find the whole IBM landscape somewhat comical yet
daunting. Lots of achievement and lots of angst
over appearing too proud. On the flip side there
is Oracle, with a lot of strutting around like a
peacock, with totally undeserving value run by a
pompous self-absorbed self-serving megalomaniac
full of arrogance. But I'm getting redundant, and
digress. There is a whole generation of computer
users who will never see a mainframe, AS/400, OS/390,
etc. etc. The fact that they won't know the value
of old, big iron systems doesn't make them bad, it
just means that a whole new generation of IT
professionals are going to solve business problems
outside the mainframe space, and would never even
begin to consider them, instead trying to make Linux
and Windows work faster and more efficiently. I'm
simply asking questions about mainframes because I
simply don't have a clue about that market, and find
it curious that those that do, think that counting DB2
on AS/400 is irrelevant or lies when it is clear that
they really don't know jack about the DB2 market.
Anyway, I remain curious about some kind of hidden
value in the mainframe space that cannot be found in
the Linux or Windows space. Enlighten me.
Obviously UNIX, Linux, and Windows server technology, including the
databases that run on them, have come a long way in a short time.
I think that one reason most IT people will never develop on a mainframe is
that you can't run it your PC at home. Also, the scope of IT has increased
exponentially, so even if mainframes remain stable in terms of workload, the
rest of IT is growing extremely fast.
But I think most people would be amazed at how close they really are to
mainframes in their everyday life. Telephone, gas, electric, oil companies,
banks, brokerage houses, airlines, governments, etc. They are more pervasive
than you would realize in your own life, albeit as a consumer.
Whether mainframes survive is partially going to be whether they become
price competitive with UNIX boxes. People are starting to realize that it
takes a lot of personnel to maintain lots of small UNIX survivors in an
enterprise. UNIX servers are becoming more larger and more consolidated,
more like mainframes. Is a $5 million UNIX cluster a mainframe? Why not?
People are starting to realize that it takes a lot of personnel to maintain lots of small UNIX survivors in an
enterprise. UNIX servers are becoming more larger and more consolidated,
more like mainframes.
So by a zSeries, put Linux on it and put IDS on top of that!
Works like a dream!!
I think that one reason most IT people will never develop on a mainframe is
that you can't run it your PC at home.
But as everyone gets ADSL, and can "tunnel" into their companies
internal network from the house, people can use their PC at home as if
it was on their desk in the office. So again this perhaps start to
change. I now have a PDA running a web browser, which has a desk top
on it, and all my files are stored in my Informix database. Can access
them all on my PC at work, at home, or on my PDA if I am "on the
road". Not that far off Larry's thin client vision, except its a PDA
and and Informix database, not a net computer and "O"
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<F4****************@news.uswest.net>... "Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BV****************@fe41.usenetserver.com... Why would my question not be serious?
I find the whole IBM landscape somewhat comical yet
daunting. Lots of achievement and lots of angst
over appearing too proud. On the flip side there
is Oracle, with a lot of strutting around like a
peacock, with totally undeserving value run by a
pompous self-absorbed self-serving megalomaniac
full of arrogance. But I'm getting redundant, and
digress. There is a whole generation of computer
users who will never see a mainframe, AS/400, OS/390,
etc. etc. The fact that they won't know the value
of old, big iron systems doesn't make them bad, it
just means that a whole new generation of IT
professionals are going to solve business problems
outside the mainframe space, and would never even
begin to consider them, instead trying to make Linux
and Windows work faster and more efficiently. I'm
simply asking questions about mainframes because I
simply don't have a clue about that market, and find
it curious that those that do, think that counting DB2
on AS/400 is irrelevant or lies when it is clear that
they really don't know jack about the DB2 market.
Anyway, I remain curious about some kind of hidden
value in the mainframe space that cannot be found in
the Linux or Windows space. Enlighten me.
Obviously UNIX, Linux, and Windows server technology, including the
databases that run on them, have come a long way in a short time.
I think that one reason most IT people will never develop on a mainframe is
that you can't run it your PC at home. Also, the scope of IT has increased
exponentially, so even if mainframes remain stable in terms of workload, the
rest of IT is growing extremely fast.
But I think most people would be amazed at how close they really are to
mainframes in their everyday life. Telephone, gas, electric, oil companies,
banks, brokerage houses, airlines, governments, etc. They are more pervasive
than you would realize in your own life, albeit as a consumer.
Whether mainframes survive is partially going to be whether they become
price competitive with UNIX boxes. People are starting to realize that it
takes a lot of personnel to maintain lots of small UNIX survivors in an
enterprise. UNIX servers are becoming more larger and more consolidated,
more like mainframes. Is a $5 million UNIX cluster a mainframe? Why not?
"scottishpoet" <dr*******@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:81**************************@posting.google.c om... But as everyone gets ADSL, and can "tunnel" into their companies
internal network from the house, people can use their PC at home as if
it was on their desk in the office. So again this perhaps start to
change. I now have a PDA running a web browser, which has a desk top
on it, and all my files are stored in my Informix database. Can access
them all on my PC at work, at home ...
You don't have NTL at home then?!
Basically ... one places an application on the mainframe (vs. on
Intel/AMD/UNIX) when one needs the bullet-proof reliability,
availability, security, and performance that the mainframe has had the
time to attain as it is the most mature of all the platforms. There are
companies like BMC and CA that have made billions of dollars developing
and selling tools for monitoring and administering the mainframe
environment. Every day, something you do touches a mainframe. Most
banks, brokerage firms, airlines, car rental agencies, etc. use
mainframes for their critical applications.
While the Intel/AMD/UNIX platforms have made tremendous strides over the
years, they just do not yet approach what the mainframe can offer in the
above areas. Yes, they are more expensive to manage and administer. But
that cost is justified by the "protection" that they offer, or else
customers wouldn't pay it.
Larry Edelstein
Data Goob wrote: Why would my question not be serious?
I find the whole IBM landscape somewhat comical yet
daunting. Lots of achievement and lots of angst
over appearing too proud. On the flip side there
is Oracle, with a lot of strutting around like a
peacock, with totally undeserving value run by a
pompous self-absorbed self-serving megalomaniac
full of arrogance. But I'm getting redundant, and
digress. There is a whole generation of computer
users who will never see a mainframe, AS/400, OS/390,
etc. etc. The fact that they won't know the value
of old, big iron systems doesn't make them bad, it
just means that a whole new generation of IT
professionals are going to solve business problems
outside the mainframe space, and would never even
begin to consider them, instead trying to make Linux
and Windows work faster and more efficiently. I'm
simply asking questions about mainframes because I
simply don't have a clue about that market, and find
it curious that those that do, think that counting DB2
on AS/400 is irrelevant or lies when it is clear that
they really don't know jack about the DB2 market.
Anyway, I remain curious about some kind of hidden
value in the mainframe space that cannot be found in
the Linux or Windows space. Enlighten me.
"Larry" <La***@nospam.net> wrote in message news:dy*****************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net.. .
It's hard to believe you'd be seriously asking this question. I can
guarantee you that something you did within the past week (if not
multiple things) touched an OS/390 or Z/os application. Banking, credit
card, airline or car rental reservations system, the list goes on and on.
Larry Edelstein
Data Goob wrote:
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:ie****************@news.uswest.net...
"Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7*****************@fe42.usenetserver.com ...
>You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site
>about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to
>IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find?
>
>"IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last
>release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390
>2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS
>1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS
>1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3
>will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4
>will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the
>end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. "
>
>Does Informix run on OS/390?
>
>I would think this a match made in heaven...
>
>:-)
Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It
is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform
as a server to web clients.
OMG. Are you human? Just kidding! Seriously, is there something about
this platform that is compelling enough to consider it instead of doing things
on Linux or UNIX? Is z/OS a growth market or just something gradually
disappearing?
What's the price for a zSeries z990?
I've been perusing the z990 webpages over at ibm.com
but no prices. It's intriguing to see mainframes in
vogue running Linux, but no context of how fast these
things are and how much they cost to implement. The
jargon is also completely opaque unless you grew up
in a mainframe environment, which I did not.
"Larry" <La***@nospam.net> wrote in message news:SB********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.ne t... Basically ... one places an application on the mainframe (vs. on
Intel/AMD/UNIX) when one needs the bullet-proof reliability,
availability, security, and performance that the mainframe has had the
time to attain as it is the most mature of all the platforms. There are
companies like BMC and CA that have made billions of dollars developing
and selling tools for monitoring and administering the mainframe
environment. Every day, something you do touches a mainframe. Most
banks, brokerage firms, airlines, car rental agencies, etc. use
mainframes for their critical applications.
While the Intel/AMD/UNIX platforms have made tremendous strides over the
years, they just do not yet approach what the mainframe can offer in the
above areas. Yes, they are more expensive to manage and administer. But
that cost is justified by the "protection" that they offer, or else
customers wouldn't pay it.
Larry Edelstein
Data Goob wrote: Why would my question not be serious?
I find the whole IBM landscape somewhat comical yet
daunting. Lots of achievement and lots of angst
over appearing too proud. On the flip side there
is Oracle, with a lot of strutting around like a
peacock, with totally undeserving value run by a
pompous self-absorbed self-serving megalomaniac
full of arrogance. But I'm getting redundant, and
digress. There is a whole generation of computer
users who will never see a mainframe, AS/400, OS/390,
etc. etc. The fact that they won't know the value
of old, big iron systems doesn't make them bad, it
just means that a whole new generation of IT
professionals are going to solve business problems
outside the mainframe space, and would never even
begin to consider them, instead trying to make Linux
and Windows work faster and more efficiently. I'm
simply asking questions about mainframes because I
simply don't have a clue about that market, and find
it curious that those that do, think that counting DB2
on AS/400 is irrelevant or lies when it is clear that
they really don't know jack about the DB2 market.
Anyway, I remain curious about some kind of hidden
value in the mainframe space that cannot be found in
the Linux or Windows space. Enlighten me.
"Larry" <La***@nospam.net> wrote in message news:dy*****************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net.. .
It's hard to believe you'd be seriously asking this question. I can
guarantee you that something you did within the past week (if not
multiple things) touched an OS/390 or Z/os application. Banking, credit
card, airline or car rental reservations system, the list goes on and on.
Larry Edelstein
Data Goob wrote:
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:ie****************@news.uswest.net...
>"Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:S7*****************@fe42.usenetserver.com ...
>
>
>>You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site
>>about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to
>>IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find?
>>
>>"IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last
>>release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390
>>2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS
>>1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS
>>1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3
>>will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4
>>will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the
>>end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. "
>>
>>Does Informix run on OS/390?
>>
>>I would think this a match made in heaven...
>>
>>:-)
>
>Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It
>is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform
>as a server to web clients.
>
>
OMG. Are you human? Just kidding! Seriously, is there something about
this platform that is compelling enough to consider it instead of doing things
on Linux or UNIX? Is z/OS a growth market or just something gradually
disappearing?
Honestly? I don't know. They have become less and less expensive ...
especially the entry-level models. Remember though what your paying for.
Yes for certain apps, one only needs the RAS profile of the
Intel/AMD/UNIX environment. We have many of those, as does Sun, HP,
Oracle, Sybase, etc. But the mainframe offers other things, and that's
what you pay for.
Anybody else know?
Larry Edelstein
Data Goob wrote: What's the price for a zSeries z990?
I've been perusing the z990 webpages over at ibm.com
but no prices. It's intriguing to see mainframes in
vogue running Linux, but no context of how fast these
things are and how much they cost to implement. The
jargon is also completely opaque unless you grew up
in a mainframe environment, which I did not.
"Larry" <La***@nospam.net> wrote in message news:SB********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.ne t...
Basically ... one places an application on the mainframe (vs. on
Intel/AMD/UNIX) when one needs the bullet-proof reliability,
availability, security, and performance that the mainframe has had the
time to attain as it is the most mature of all the platforms. There are
companies like BMC and CA that have made billions of dollars developing
and selling tools for monitoring and administering the mainframe
environment. Every day, something you do touches a mainframe. Most
banks, brokerage firms, airlines, car rental agencies, etc. use
mainframes for their critical applications.
While the Intel/AMD/UNIX platforms have made tremendous strides over the
years, they just do not yet approach what the mainframe can offer in the
above areas. Yes, they are more expensive to manage and administer. But
that cost is justified by the "protection" that they offer, or else
customers wouldn't pay it.
Larry Edelstein
Data Goob wrote:
Why would my question not be serious?
I find the whole IBM landscape somewhat comical yet
daunting. Lots of achievement and lots of angst
over appearing too proud. On the flip side there
is Oracle, with a lot of strutting around like a
peacock, with totally undeserving value run by a
pompous self-absorbed self-serving megalomaniac
full of arrogance. But I'm getting redundant, and
digress. There is a whole generation of computer
users who will never see a mainframe, AS/400, OS/390,
etc. etc. The fact that they won't know the value
of old, big iron systems doesn't make them bad, it
just means that a whole new generation of IT
professionals are going to solve business problems
outside the mainframe space, and would never even
begin to consider them, instead trying to make Linux
and Windows work faster and more efficiently. I'm
simply asking questions about mainframes because I
simply don't have a clue about that market, and find
it curious that those that do, think that counting DB2
on AS/400 is irrelevant or lies when it is clear that
they really don't know jack about the DB2 market.
Anyway, I remain curious about some kind of hidden
value in the mainframe space that cannot be found in
the Linux or Windows space. Enlighten me.
"Larry" <La***@nospam.net> wrote in message news:dy*****************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net.. .
It's hard to believe you'd be seriously asking this question. I can
guarantee you that something you did within the past week (if not
multiple things) touched an OS/390 or Z/os application. Banking, credit
card, airline or car rental reservations system, the list goes on and on.
Larry Edelstein
Data Goob wrote:
>"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:ie****************@news.uswest.net...
>
>
>
>>"Data Goob" <da******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:S7*****************@fe42.usenetserver.c om...
>>
>>
>>
>>>You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site
>>>about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to
>>>IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find?
>>>
>>>"IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last
>>>release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390
>>>2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS
>>>1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS
>>>1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3
>>>will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4
>>>will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the
>>>end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. "
>>>
>>>Does Informix run on OS/390?
>>>
>>>I would think this a match made in heaven...
>>>
>>>:-)
>>
>>Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It
>>is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform
>>as a server to web clients.
>>
>>
>
>OMG. Are you human? Just kidding! Seriously, is there something about
>this platform that is compelling enough to consider it instead of doing things
>on Linux or UNIX? Is z/OS a growth market or just something gradually
>disappearing?
>
>
>
>
This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
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...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
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,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
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...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
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,...
| |
