database market share 2003

[rkusenet]

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_...etshare_1.html

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

[Mark A]

> > and because of government regulation over the

years of IBM as a monopoly,
which stopped about 15 years ago, but the "folks"
keep invoking it as if it was magically still in effect...

Where did you get that information? Not true, it is still in effect for
mainframe stuff. Companies have been able to buy absolutely plug compatible
mainframe hardware for many years.

there is plug compatible competition at
virtually every level (even mainframe hardware).

No there isn't. If there has been a change in IT
in the last 5 years it is PRECISELY the absence
of any serious competition to IBM hardware anywhere
other than in Unix. One of the "little" results of
Reaganomics.

If the plug compatible hardware vendors have stopped competing, it is
because IBM lowered their prices so much to compete with UNIX and Windows
platforms. IBM is still required to provide mainframe microcode to the
competitors if they want to make plug compatible hardware.
As for software, it's impossible to compete with a
company that claims to "run" everything everywhere...
--

You must be talking about Oracle.

[Mark A]

"Noons" <wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
news:40**********************@news.optusnet.com.au ...

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 9:37 PM:

You obviously don't pay the bills.

The IBM bills? No I don't.

You don't pay the Oracle bills either. Your company pays them. Maybe you
just authorize them to be paid. But the cost of Oracle is why people are
trying to port their applications to something else. Good old Reaganomics.

[Noons]

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 9:48 PM:

You don't pay the Oracle bills either. Your company pays them. Maybe you
Akshally, my company pays bills to IBM...
Wrong again. But that is a constant already.
just authorize them to be paid. But the cost of Oracle is why people are
trying to port their applications to something else. Good old Reaganomics.

Funnily enough, I see NO ONE "porting" their apps to "something else".
But that must be an internal IBM "vision"...
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Mark A]

> Funnily enough, I see NO ONE "porting" their apps to "something else".

But that must be an internal IBM "vision"...

I don't have "IBM vision," nor do I particularly care. But I do see lots of
Oracle to DB2 questions on this and other DB2 forums (like www.dbforms.com).
I am sure their are similar questions about converting Oracle to SQL Server
on other forums.

[Noons]

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 9:46 PM:

Where did you get that information? Not true, it is still in effect for
mainframe stuff. Companies have been able to buy absolutely plug compatible
mainframe hardware for many years.
Where?
If the plug compatible hardware vendors have stopped competing, it is
because IBM lowered their prices so much to compete with UNIX and Windows
platforms. IBM is still required to provide mainframe microcode to the
competitors if they want to make plug compatible hardware.
WTH wants to make pcm stuff to compete with a virtual monopoly
in discount wars? Helllloooooooo?

As for software, it's impossible to compete with a
company that claims to "run" everything everywhere...
--

You must be talking about Oracle.

Nope. Oracle claims they run their DB everywhere.
IBM claims it can run EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE.
Try reading, next time. Then again, claims are easy...
Just like the "single code base for DB2" that "NEVER
was mentioned at IBM":

http://tinyurl.com/2nd2j

Ooooo, bugger! Only 430962 matches?

and, just picking one result at random:

http://tinyurl.com/2ygua

<quote>
Roger: Many of the enterprise applications are using Java. V8 Java support is
more consistent across platforms as we use a single code base across the DB2
family. Improved SQL consistency also adds new function to DB2
</quote>

Of course, it's all errors, omissions, people badly intentioned,
no way IBM "approves this sort of statement", etcetc...

<sigh>
Some of the "folks" like to have it rubbed in your faces,
don't you?
<retraction>
BTW, nothing to do with Blair. I was wrong in thinking
he had claimed it in the old thread. Its start has been
obliterated from google and Blair's posts are not the ones I
was looking for. Many thanks for helping me here Blair, it
is much appreciated.
Only wish others at IBM had yours and Serge's helpful attitudes.
You folks are a credit to your workplace and company.
</retraction>

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Noons]

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 10:02 PM:

I don't have "IBM vision," nor do I particularly care. But I do see lots of
Oracle to DB2 questions on this and other DB2 forums (like www.dbforms.com).
I am sure their are similar questions about converting Oracle to SQL Server
on other forums.

Of course. And a lot about converting SQL Server and DB2 to Oracle.
Goes for all. What does that prove? About and exactly squat...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Mark A]

"Noons" <wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
news:40***********************@news.optusnet.com.a u...

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 9:46 PM:

Where did you get that information? Not true, it is still in effect for
mainframe stuff. Companies have been able to buy absolutely plug compatible mainframe hardware for many years.
Where?

Amdhal and Hitrachi Data Systems. But I really don't know if they still make
plug compatibles anymore, since mainframe prices have come down so much.

If the plug compatible hardware vendors have stopped competing, it is
because IBM lowered their prices so much to compete with UNIX and Windows platforms. IBM is still required to provide mainframe microcode to the
competitors if they want to make plug compatible hardware.
WTH wants to make pcm stuff to compete with a virtual monopoly
in discount wars? Helllloooooooo?

Gene Amdahl became a very rich man making Amdahl mainframes that were plug
compatible with IBMs.

Just like the "single code base for DB2" that "NEVER
was mentioned at IBM":

http://tinyurl.com/2nd2j

They are clearly talking about the same code base for DB2 for Linux, UNIX,
and Windows. I have never seen them claim that DB2 for OS/390 has the same
codebase as other DB2's.
Ooooo, bugger! Only 430962 matches?

and, just picking one result at random:

http://tinyurl.com/2ygua

Try looking a little closer. He is talking about the The Java Universal
Driver which does use the same code base accross all platforms.

[Mark A]

>>> Funnily enough, I see NO ONE "porting" their apps to "something else".

But that must be an internal IBM "vision"...

I don't have "IBM vision," nor do I particularly care. But I do see lots of Oracle to DB2 questions on this and other DB2 forums (like www.dbforms.com). I am sure their are similar questions about converting Oracle to SQL Server on other forums.

Of course. And a lot about converting SQL Server and DB2 to Oracle.
Goes for all. What does that prove? About and exactly squat...
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto

I never said it proved anything. You implied that Oracle to DB2 never
happened (because YOU did not see it happen, see your quote above for
details), which is false. Sounds like you need another retraction.

I really don't know the net effect of all these conversions, but from what I
have seen, Oracle market share is dropping, especially on new installations
(rather than upgrades).

I don't think that it means that Oracle is a bad product, but DB2 and SQL
Server have caught up from a product perspective, and they are much cheaper,
both in terms of initial cost, and cost of ownership.

[Noons]

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 10:17 PM:

Amdhal and Hitrachi Data Systems. But I really don't know if they still make
plug compatibles anymore, since mainframe prices have come down so much.
Then WTH are you claiming that it is still done?
Gene Amdahl became a very rich man making Amdahl mainframes that were plug
compatible with IBMs.
So what? Who's talking about what happened 20 years ago?
I said: in the last 5 years. Can you stay within the subject
for a second?

http://tinyurl.com/2nd2j

They are clearly talking about the same code base for DB2 for Linux, UNIX,
and Windows. I have never seen them claim that DB2 for OS/390 has the same
codebase as other DB2's.

Try looking a little closer. He is talking about the The Java Universal
Driver which does use the same code base accross all platforms.

crapcrapcrap....

remarkably, the phrase is:

"as we use a single code base across the DB2 family"
strange "family" that changes form z/OS DB2 to Java "universal driver"
like lightening, depending on what interpretation is given...
Like I said before: "everything everywhere". what is important is to claim it,
not to be correct. Isn't it? :)

and the quote is from an article that reads in the VERY FIRST paragraph:
"Version 8 of the IBM DB2 Universal Database for z/OS represents the "
Not bad for "clearly talking about the same code base for DB2 for Linux, ".
Of course. It's all the same everywhere, isn't it?
Definitely enjoying to get it rubbed on your faces....
Can't you just see that it is PLAINLY indefensible, TOTALLY RIDICULOUS
and DEMEANING to even pretend that it is anything else but a sham?

Do you really want more ACTUAL quotes from IBM's OWN web sites and
articles? There are only 430000 of them to go, you know?
We could be here a looong time...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Mark A]

> Definitely enjoying to get it rubbed on your faces....

Can't you just see that it is PLAINLY indefensible, TOTALLY RIDICULOUS
and DEMEANING to even pretend that it is anything else but a sham?

Do you really want more ACTUAL quotes from IBM's OWN web sites and
articles? There are only 430000 of them to go, you know?
We could be here a looong time...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto

You have been proven wrong in your assertion. None of the quotes are as you
say they are. Making up stuff and misquoting is not a defensible position.
Time for you to issue another retraction.

[Noons]

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 10:25 PM:

Funnily enough, I see NO ONE "porting" their apps to "something else".
But that must be an internal IBM "vision"...

I never said it proved anything. You implied that Oracle to DB2 never
happened (because YOU did not see it happen, see your quote above for
details), which is false. Sounds like you need another retraction.
You're the one that needs your head examined! Which apps have
been "ported" AWAY from Oracle? Don't confuse making them available
on a new product to moving them away from Oracle. The two are only
the same in your fertile imagination...
I really don't know the net effect of all these conversions,
WHAT "all these conversions"???? Name ONE!
Once again, on fumes. Porting to an ADDITIONAL platform
is NOT moving away from the previous one. Got it?

have seen, Oracle market share is dropping, especially on new installations
(rather than upgrades).
All I see is once the initial impact of "adding" AS400 and mainframe
licenses to Unix licenses wore off, DB2 has basically stagnated.
As widely expected. After all, one can only pull that dirty trick once.
Although knowing IBM, it will probably be a short jump to add in
CICS licenses as well. And Assembler. And whatever else they might
scrounge around...

While SQL Server is going all sails ahead. With MySQL picking up the
stray bits. That is the reality. Better deal with it...
As for new installations, that is wide open to many "interpretations",
so we better not go there.
I don't think that it means that Oracle is a bad product, but DB2 and SQL
Server have caught up from a product perspective, and they are much cheaper,
both in terms of initial cost, and cost of ownership.

Correction: SQL Server IS much cheaper. DB2 never was, never will be.
And TCO is about as bogus a definition as any.
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Mark A]

"Noons" <wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
news:40**********************@news.optusnet.com.au ...

WHAT "all these conversions"???? Name ONE!
Once again, on fumes. Porting to an ADDITIONAL platform
is NOT moving away from the previous one. Got it?

I don't work for IBM, so I don't feel compelled to keep track of Oracle to
DB2 conversions. All I know is that I see a lot of questions about
conversions on this forum and on www.dbforums.com

[Mark A]

OK, after little research, I found out the Amdahl has been purchased by
Fujitsu and they still make IBM plug compatible mainframes. IBM is still
required by the government to provide Fujitsu/Amdahl with microcode and
access to OS/390 source code to allow them to clone IBM mainframes.

Here is a blurb from the Fujitsu/Amdahl website:

Fortune 500 customers can continue to utilize the System/390 compatible
server line of products for their mission-critical applications for years to
come. The Millennium and OmniFlex servers are high performing, proven
technology, and very reliable. Our servers will continue to provide our
customers the best value and lowest total cost of ownership for System/390
computing.

http://www.Amdahl.com/fih/products/index.html

[Noons]

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 10:39 PM:

You have been proven wrong in your assertion.
What, by your deranged ramblings?

None of the quotes are as you
say they are.
ALL the quotes are EXACTLY as I said they are:
they are EXACT copies of what is in IBM's site.
Yours are just interpretations from your fertile
imagination.

Making up stuff and misquoting is not a defensible position.
Precisely. Ready to retire now?
Time for you to issue another retraction.

Why should I do what you need to do?

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Noons]

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 10:48 PM:

I don't work for IBM, so I don't feel compelled to keep track of Oracle to
DB2 conversions. All I know is that I see a lot of questions about
conversions on this forum and on www.dbforums.com

And I see a LOT of questions on converting from DB2 and SQL Server
to Oracle. In MANY forums. Do I assume there is a groundswell
move away from those two to Oracle? Narh, I don't have
your fertile "imagination".

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Noons]

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 10:53 PM:

OK, after little research, I found out the Amdahl has been purchased by
so, that crap about Gene was only what? 20 years old info?

come. The Millennium and OmniFlex servers are high performing, proven
technology, and very reliable. Our servers will continue to provide our
customers the best value and lowest total cost of ownership for System/390
computing.

an yet remarkably, they sold how many new accounts? Ah yes: none...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Mark A]

> > I don't work for IBM, so I don't feel compelled to keep track of Oracle
to

DB2 conversions. All I know is that I see a lot of questions about
conversions on this forum and on www.dbforums.com

And I see a LOT of questions on converting from DB2 and SQL Server
to Oracle. In MANY forums. Do I assume there is a groundswell
move away from those two to Oracle? Narh, I don't have
your fertile "imagination".

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto

I never claimed that there were no DB2 to Oracle conversions. However YOU
DID CLAIM that were no Oracle to DB2 conversions because you did not see any
of them.

As I mentioned, Oracle market share is declining, especially on new
installation (not upgrades), so I will let that speak for itself with regard
to conversions.

[Mark A]

> > The Millennium and OmniFlex servers are high performing, proven

technology, and very reliable. Our servers will continue to provide our
customers the best value and lowest total cost of ownership for System/390 computing.

an yet remarkably, they sold how many new accounts? Ah yes: none...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto

When IBM mainframes (or plug compatibles) already have 90% penetration in
the Fortune 500 (in terms of accounts), how many new accounts are you
expecting?

But that is not the point. I am still awaiting a retraction on your claim
that there are no plug compatible IBM mainframes available for customers
today. I realize that I may have to wait in line for a retraction (due to
the many inaccuracies in your posts), but I am patient.

[Noons]

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 11:01 PM:

I never claimed that there were no DB2 to Oracle conversions. However YOU
DID CLAIM that were no Oracle to DB2 conversions because you did not see any
of them.
No. Stay within the Queen's language, please. I said there are very few
(if any) commercial app conversions AWAY from Oracle. What there is
is PORTING AS WELL to SQL Server and DB2. Perfectly kosher in anyone's
book and only you could come up with the derivation that it is
a "conversion from Oracle".
As I mentioned, Oracle market share is declining, especially on new
installation (not upgrades), so I will let that speak for itself with regard
to conversions.

Me too. New installations are "conversions" now, eh?
Makes a lot of sense. Just like the Amdahl recycled old history,
the denial of the obvious in IBM's own site, etcetc.
I let that speak for itself as well....
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Noons]

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 11:07 PM:

When IBM mainframes (or plug compatibles) already have 90% penetration in
the Fortune 500 (in terms of accounts), how many new accounts are you
expecting?
None. It's called a monopoly. Something Reaganomics favored.

But that is not the point. I am still awaiting a retraction on your claim
that there are no plug compatible IBM mainframes available for customers
today.
There aren't. Fact is: not one is sold to new accounts.
I realize that I may have to wait in line for a retraction (due to
the many inaccuracies in your posts), but I am patient.

Try fishing. trolling is not your forte...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Mark A]

> > When IBM mainframes (or plug compatibles) already have 90% penetration
in

the Fortune 500 (in terms of accounts), how many new accounts are you
expecting?

None. It's called a monopoly. Something Reaganomics favored.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto

IBM became a monopoly on the mainframe platform long before Reagan was
president. Their biggest growth period was the 1960's and 1970's when there
were quite a few Democratic presidents, and when Democrats completely
controlled the House of Representatives, and usually controlled the Senate.

[Mark A]

> > I never claimed that there were no DB2 to Oracle conversions. However
YOU

DID CLAIM that were no Oracle to DB2 conversions because you did not see any of them.

No. Stay within the Queen's language, please. I said there are very few
(if any) commercial app conversions AWAY from Oracle. What there is
is PORTING AS WELL to SQL Server and DB2. Perfectly kosher in anyone's
book and only you could come up with the derivation that it is
a "conversion from Oracle".

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto

I understand English if that's what you mean. And below is what you said.
Retraction please.

"Funnily enough, I see NO ONE "porting" their apps to "something else". But
that must be an internal IBM "vision"..."

[Noons]

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 11:21 PM:

IBM became a monopoly on the mainframe platform long before Reagan was
president.
And that "proves" Reagan did not favor IBM because?......
Their biggest growth period was the 1960's and 1970's when there
were quite a few Democratic presidents, and when Democrats completely
controlled the House of Representatives, and usually controlled the Senate.

And for that they copped it. And Reagan removed the restriction,
thereby ensuring it REMAINED a monopoly. That's what "favored"
means, BTW.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Noons]

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 11:23 PM:

I understand English if that's what you mean. And below is what you said.
Retraction please.

"Funnily enough, I see NO ONE "porting" their apps to "something else". But
that must be an internal IBM "vision"..."

Nope. I stand by what I said. The apps that had to be ported to
other environments have been so. In the last 5 years or so.
And they happily run in SQL Server, DB2 AND Oracle.
Since then, nothing much anywhere.

As for anyone moving their in-house code FROM Oracle to DB2,
like I said: that is not porting, that is a conversion. And it
happens in ALL directions and for ALL products, not just one.
Not significant.

Ah yes, I've seen a lot of move away FROM Informix, that is
a fact. Unfortunately. But I'm sure IBM will find a way
of calling it DB2 as well. Real soon now. Then it will
all be alright and IBM will "increase" its market "share"....

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Enor P]

Noons wrote:

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 11:21 PM:

IBM became a monopoly on the mainframe platform long before Reagan was
president.

And that "proves" Reagan did not favor IBM because?......

> Their biggest growth period was the 1960's and 1970's when there
were quite a few Democratic presidents, and when Democrats completely
controlled the House of Representatives, and usually controlled the
Senate.

And for that they copped it. And Reagan removed the restriction,
thereby ensuring it REMAINED a monopoly. That's what "favored"
means, BTW.

Am not sure, what is monopoly? Is gaem for litle children yes? This work
with Infomrix how?

--
Enor

[Ian]

Mark Townsend wrote:

If one submitts an article to IDUG or DBM Tech it is _mandatory_ to
clarify the applicability in the title if a talk is not cross-platform.

Here are session titles from this years IDUG Conferences - very few of
them cross platform, and not a single one with any sign of platform
applicability. I guess we need to differ of what _mandatory_ means as well.

You're being disingenuous.
Here's the information for 2 of these sessions (from www.idug.org).

D1: DB2 UDB V8 : Exploiting it's New Advancements in High Availability

Matt Huras
IBM Toronto Lab

Audience Experience: Intermediate,Advanced

Presentation Platform: DB2 for Linux, UNIX, Windows

Start: 10:30 AM
End: 11:40 AM

Room: Crystal C-D
Or:

G1: Query Optimization for Large Tables in V8

Terry Purcell
IBM Silicon Valley Lab

Audience Experience: Intermediate,Advanced

Presentation Platform: DB2 for z/OS

Start: 10:30 AM
End: 11:40 AM

Room: Grand IX & X


It's pretty clear to me which platform each presentation is for.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Gert van der Kooij]

In article <40***********************@news.optusnet.com.au> , Noons
(wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam) says...

crapcrapcrap....

remarkably, the phrase is:

"as we use a single code base across the DB2 family"

???????

Roger: Many of the enterprise applications are using Java. V8 Java
support is more consistent across platforms as we use a single code
base across the DB2 family.

[Captain Pedantic]

"Noons" <wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
news:40**********************@news.optusnet.com.au ...

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 9:00 PM:

I very much think so, having been on the receiving end of their
sales techniques for a looooooong time....

Sales techniques? Maybe you could explain your libelous statement in detail. I doubt very much that your were in a decision making postion anyway, which is what you are really complaining about.

Libelous was your mother!

Jocasta was my mother. But that's another story ...

[Mark Townsend]

Ian wrote:

Mark Townsend wrote:

If one submitts an article to IDUG or DBM Tech it is _mandatory_ to
clarify the applicability in the title if a talk is not cross-platform.

Here are session titles from this years IDUG Conferences - very few of
them cross platform, and not a single one with any sign of platform
applicability. I guess we need to differ of what _mandatory_ means as
well.

You're being disingenuous.

Well, only slightly. You really can't tell from the titles, as Serge
postulated was a mandatory requirement. And even with a seperate
categorization, some papers do seem to be mis-categorized, which I'm
sure is just finger trouble

C1: DB2 UDB Internals for Administrators : Complete with V8 Details
Matt Huras , IBM Toronto Lab

Speaker: Matt Huras, IBM Toronto Lab

Full Abstract: This presentation will give administrators the key
information they need to most effectively manage their installations. It
will provide the inside scoop on how DB2 on the UNIX, Windows and Linux
platforms works internally. Special focus will be given to the new
features in V8, including: type 2 indexes, multi-dimensional clustering,
the connection concentrator, null/default compression, dynamic memory
tuning, widened 64-bit support, and other V8 features.

Presentation Platform: Cross Platform

What is interesting is that at the Orlando event there are 82 papers
marked as OS/390, 53 as LUW(Ser), and 61 as Cross Platform. Do the
iSeries folk get their own conference, just not travel, or just not care
? So how much of the original market share numbers were attributable to
the iSeries platform again ?

[Joel Garry]

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

Daniel Morgan wrote:

Then we can all get back to postings about things of import such as
Pink Floyd vs. Bach.
Couldn't we just do this anyway? Don't you all know the second law of
Usenet?

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you
win, you are still retarded.

I'm waiting to see who's going to be the first to lose the argument
according to Godwin's Law (first law of Usenet).

But this thread seems to be proving Garry's Paradox:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

Take it offline or meet for a macho-cafe-latte-decaf-muggachino in a
Starbucks somewhere, so you can sort out this vital issue once and for all.

Is c.d.i destined to become a desolate wasteland of pointless arguments and
whingers pining for the good old days?

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Remember Kaypro? http://www.lewisizerpresents.com/leo.html

[Joel Garry]

Noons <wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:<40**********************@news.optusnet.com.a u>...

Madison Pruet allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 1:09 PM:

Then we can all get back to postings about things of import such as
Pink Floyd vs. Bach.

I'm a Mozart fan myself... ;-)

and brother Ray Charles passed away today.
A minute of silence, boys and girls.
The world is now a smaller place, as far as I'm concerned...
:(

Don't know if you had Super Dave down there, but they did one bit (at
least, I _think_ it was Super Dave) where this stunt car drives around
tilted up on two wheels, then comes to a stop and it's Ray Charles at
the wheel, with a big grin :)

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.ticketsinaflash.com/conce...y_Charles.html

[Joel Garry]

"Mark A" <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:<Sk****************@news.uswest.net>...

When IBM mainframes (or plug compatibles) already have 90% penetration in the Fortune 500 (in terms of accounts), how many new accounts are you
expecting?

None. It's called a monopoly. Something Reaganomics favored.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto

IBM became a monopoly on the mainframe platform long before Reagan was
president. Their biggest growth period was the 1960's and 1970's when there
were quite a few Democratic presidents, and when Democrats completely
controlled the House of Representatives, and usually controlled the Senate.

The 1956 consent decree, which all the subsequent market opening
derived from because it required IBM to sell, rather than lease, was
under Eisenhower. The biggest growth happened in spite of the
monopoly breakdown, because of trust formation, which Johnson famously
busted, and IBM being able to come up with far more capital than
competitors, both for technological standardization and sales force
mobilization.

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum...3.04.06.x.html
http://www.computerhistory.org/event...dahl_09052001/

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Net libel lawsuit: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...n11pledge.html

[Serge Rielau]

Gert van der Kooij wrote:

In article <40***********************@news.optusnet.com.au> , Noons
(wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam) says...

crapcrapcrap....

remarkably, the phrase is:

"as we use a single code base across the DB2 family"

???????

Roger: Many of the enterprise applications are using Java. V8 Java
support is more consistent across platforms as we use a single code
base across the DB2 family.

Cool, let's go beat up Sun now :-)

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Serge Rielau]

Noons wrote:

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 11:01 PM:

I never claimed that there were no DB2 to Oracle conversions. However YOU
DID CLAIM that were no Oracle to DB2 conversions because you did not
see any
of them.

No. Stay within the Queen's language, please. I said there are very few
(if any) commercial app conversions AWAY from Oracle. What there is
is PORTING AS WELL to SQL Server and DB2. Perfectly kosher in anyone's
book and only you could come up with the derivation that it is
a "conversion from Oracle".

Porting is certainly the vast majority of work that is going on, and
that is healthy for the market, IMHO.
But there is also a good deal of conversion as I know first hand.
Especially the BI space is highly contested between Oracle, DB2 for LUW
and Teradata. The product offerings differ sufficiently as well as the
prices to make the investments into a conversion worthwhile.
Reality is no customer converts a custom app without good reason. It
requires a lot of sweat.
Packaged apps are a different story due to the abstraction layer. A lot
easier.

Cheers
Serge

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Andrew Hamm]

Joel Garry wrote:

I'm waiting to see who's going to be the first to lose the argument
according to Godwin's Law (first law of Usenet).

But this thread seems to be proving Garry's Paradox:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

I dunno - noon is starting to get very personal. I'm tempted to weigh in and
nudge him towards vast sweeping generalisations of corporate personalities,
to see if he stumbles over the abyss. I wouldn't want to activate Quirk, as
was pointed out in your link.

[Noons]

Gert van der Kooij apparently said,on my timestamp of 12/06/2004 1:31 AM:

???????

Roger: Many of the enterprise applications are using Java. V8 Java
support is more consistent across platforms as we use a single code
base across the DB2 family.

<yawn>
you the latest one now?

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Blair Adamache]

Last I head, Micfocus and the two Unix ODBC companies (Visigenic and Intersolv)
had all linked up in a menage a trois.

Daniel Morgan's assertion that code for some RDBMS's can be moved across without
recompilation perhaps implies intrepretive languages that have no compiler.
IBM's Rexx fits into this class.

Is he mean's C, then I'd love to hear how endianess is not an issue for C
applications. I'd also like to hear about life on Mars.

Mark Townsend wrote:

> The OS/390 (MVS or whatever) COBOL compiler you might
have used with Oracle on OS/390 is not compatible with any Windows, Linux,
or UNIX COBOL compiler (assuming you even wanted to use COBOL on those
platforms).

I seem to remember (from faded memory) that Microfocus had a compiler
that was (reasonably) compatible. Or was that just to the OS/2 ? I know
we moved a swag of Cobol FinServs apps onto HP a decade ago without
significant rewrite. Is microfocs even around anymore - CA-Microfocus ?

[Blair Adamache]

A dependence? I guess that's why successful software companies, like pushers,
refer to their customers as users. Picture those poor DBA's, like crack addicts,
stumbling down the alley ways to their next hit of DB2.

Noons wrote:

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 3:02 PM:

You make it sound like IBM has the power of the mafia. I don't think so.

I very much think so, having been on the receiving end of their
sales techniques for a looooooong time....

Actually, a surprising number of companies have purchased Oracle for OS/390.
Oracle gave me 5 references in the Fortune top 25 companies in the US. I
checked all 5 out, and all 5 purchased it, but not one was using it for a
production system.

That to me spells one thing and one thing only: there is a surprising
number of companies that are looking at ANY way of becoming LESS
dependent on IBM. I wonder why...
Unfortunately, there are very few people left around that know
exactly how to take advantage of that.
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Blair Adamache]

Well, SAP R3, and applications from Peoplesoft, Siebel and JD Edwards, many of
which were written for Oracle and later ported to DB2, Sybase, Informix IDS and
SQL Server in the 1990's, have had extensive investment from their owners to be
"anything but Oracle" as their internal RDBMS development platform.

Noons wrote:

Which apps have
been "ported" AWAY from Oracle?

[Blair Adamache]

iSeries does have a conference called Common (http://www.common.org/).

BTW, while the DB2 database engines on iSeries and zOS are different code
bases, the client for all DB2 serves is the same, so the cross platform topics
below would be of interest to DB2 users on almost any supported platform. And,
as always, it's nice to see Mark T so fluent in all the great DB2 topics
offered by IBM and the DB2 User's Group. I still think you could pass that DB2
Certification exam Mark, and that accomplishment would really spice up your
resume.

Mark Townsend wrote:

Ian wrote:

Mark Townsend wrote:

If one submitts an article to IDUG or DBM Tech it is _mandatory_ to
clarify the applicability in the title if a talk is not cross-platform.

Here are session titles from this years IDUG Conferences - very few of
them cross platform, and not a single one with any sign of platform
applicability. I guess we need to differ of what _mandatory_ means as
well.

You're being disingenuous.

Well, only slightly. You really can't tell from the titles, as Serge
postulated was a mandatory requirement. And even with a seperate
categorization, some papers do seem to be mis-categorized, which I'm
sure is just finger trouble

C1: DB2 UDB Internals for Administrators : Complete with V8 Details
Matt Huras , IBM Toronto Lab

Speaker: Matt Huras, IBM Toronto Lab

Full Abstract: This presentation will give administrators the key
information they need to most effectively manage their installations. It
will provide the inside scoop on how DB2 on the UNIX, Windows and Linux
platforms works internally. Special focus will be given to the new
features in V8, including: type 2 indexes, multi-dimensional clustering,
the connection concentrator, null/default compression, dynamic memory
tuning, widened 64-bit support, and other V8 features.

Presentation Platform: Cross Platform

What is interesting is that at the Orlando event there are 82 papers
marked as OS/390, 53 as LUW(Ser), and 61 as Cross Platform. Do the
iSeries folk get their own conference, just not travel, or just not care
? So how much of the original market share numbers were attributable to
the iSeries platform again ?

[Blair Adamache]

This expression is in poor taste, but very true: 'Arguing on a newsgroup is like competing
in the special olympics - even the winners are mentally challenged."

Joel Garry wrote:

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

Daniel Morgan wrote:

Then we can all get back to postings about things of import such as
Pink Floyd vs. Bach.

Couldn't we just do this anyway? Don't you all know the second law of
Usenet?

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you
win, you are still retarded.

I'm waiting to see who's going to be the first to lose the argument
according to Godwin's Law (first law of Usenet).

But this thread seems to be proving Garry's Paradox:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

Take it offline or meet for a macho-cafe-latte-decaf-muggachino in a
Starbucks somewhere, so you can sort out this vital issue once and for all.

Is c.d.i destined to become a desolate wasteland of pointless arguments and
whingers pining for the good old days?

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Remember Kaypro? http://www.lewisizerpresents.com/leo.html

[Daniel Morgan]

Blair Adamache wrote:

Last I head, Micfocus and the two Unix ODBC companies (Visigenic and Intersolv)
had all linked up in a menage a trois.

Daniel Morgan's assertion that code for some RDBMS's can be moved across without
recompilation perhaps implies intrepretive languages that have no compiler.
IBM's Rexx fits into this class.

Is he mean's C, then I'd love to hear how endianess is not an issue for C
applications. I'd also like to hear about life on Mars.

I'd be happy to tell you about life on Mars as soon as it is discovered.

Until then try not commenting on products for which you have apparently
never read a manual or documentation. Functions, operators, packages,
stored procedures, and triggers can all be moved without recompilation
from any Oracle platform to any other.

Assuming that other database products have a specific weakness or
strength because yours does is not a strong starting point.

--
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)

[Noons]

Blair Adamache apparently said,on my timestamp of 14/06/2004 1:02 PM:

Well, SAP R3, and applications from Peoplesoft, Siebel and JD Edwards, many of
which were written for Oracle and later ported to DB2, Sybase, Informix IDS and
SQL Server in the 1990's, have had extensive investment from their owners to be
"anything but Oracle" as their internal RDBMS development platform.

about as much bull as I ever heard...
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Noons]

Daniel Morgan apparently said,on my timestamp of 14/06/2004 2:46 PM:

Assuming that other database products have a specific weakness or
strength because yours does is not a strong starting point.

No, but it is the whole foundation of one special
kind of marketing...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Andrew Hamm]

Blair Adamache wrote:

This expression is in poor taste, but very true: 'Arguing on a
newsgroup is like competing in the special olympics - even the
winners are mentally challenged."

Yes, but political correctness is in even poorer taste.

[Noons]

Blair Adamache <ba*******@nospamtodaysiryahoo.com> wrote in message news:<40***************@nospamtodaysiryahoo.com>.. .

Well, SAP R3, and applications from Peoplesoft, Siebel and JD Edwards, many of

Absolute total and utter nonsense. SAP, Siebel, JD Edwards and many
others were written FIRST for IBM mainframe environments. That is
where their origin lies. To claim that they "moved away" from
Oracle is the perfect definition of historical revisionism a-la IBM!

Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Serge Rielau]

Noons wrote:

Blair Adamache <ba*******@nospamtodaysiryahoo.com> wrote in message news:<40***************@nospamtodaysiryahoo.com>.. .

Well, SAP R3, and applications from Peoplesoft, Siebel and JD Edwards, many of

Absolute total and utter nonsense. SAP, Siebel, JD Edwards and many
others were written FIRST for IBM mainframe environments. That is
where their origin lies. To claim that they "moved away" from
Oracle is the perfect definition of historical revisionism a-la IBM!

Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

I'm no expert in this. But Siebel was only founded in 1993. And Tom
Siebel is an ex Oracle exec. In 1993 the mainframe was proclaimed dead
already by the street.
Do you have any data to back up the claim that Siebel's premier
development platform and internal systems ran first DB2 mainframe?
Fact is that when Oracle started competing with their apps vendors those
vendors try as best as they can to distance themselves from Oracle.
Siebel itself now runs it's Siebel on DB2 and IBM runs Siebel on DB2.
I don't know how far along Siebel is converting it's development
platform from Oracle to DB2.

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

[Blair Adamache]

I thought SAP R2 was written for MVS, and SAP R3 was written first for
Oracle, and then moved to DB2 (on MVS, UNIX and Windows).

Certainly the SAP of the early 1990's bought into all the IBM
cross-platform fun (Strategic Systems Architecture, perhaps even Common
User Access). Early versions of SAP were also written for Adabas
(perhaps R1?), but the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has
invested quite a bit to change this.

In my recollection, JD Edwards was never a mainframe software vendor.
Their backgrounds is IBM S3/X and AS/400, which are known as mid-range
or minicomputer systems.

I could be wrong, and whether I am wrong or not, I welcome the
appropriately disparaging retort from yourself or Captain Morgan.

Noons wrote:

Blair Adamache <ba*******@nospamtodaysiryahoo.com> wrote in message news:<40***************@nospamtodaysiryahoo.com>.. .

Well, SAP R3, and applications from Peoplesoft, Siebel and JD Edwards, many of

Absolute total and utter nonsense. SAP, Siebel, JD Edwards and many
others were written FIRST for IBM mainframe environments. That is
where their origin lies. To claim that they "moved away" from
Oracle is the perfect definition of historical revisionism a-la IBM!

Cheers
Nuno Souto
wi*******@yahoo.com.au.nospam

[Buck Nuggets]

wi*******@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message news:<73**************************@posting.google. com>...

Absolute total and utter nonsense. SAP, Siebel, JD Edwards and many
others were written FIRST for IBM mainframe environments. That is
where their origin lies. To claim that they "moved away" from
Oracle is the perfect definition of historical revisionism a-la IBM!

Will you get over it already? You're filling the newsgroups up with
crap - apparently out of some weird need to downplay IBM's market
share.

Although an analysis of these trends is interesting - it certainly
isn't when subject to this kind of bullshit.

Just let it go....

buck

[Daniel Morgan]

Buck Nuggets wrote:

wi*******@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message news:<73**************************@posting.google. com>...

Absolute total and utter nonsense. SAP, Siebel, JD Edwards and many
others were written FIRST for IBM mainframe environments. That is
where their origin lies. To claim that they "moved away" from
Oracle is the perfect definition of historical revisionism a-la IBM!

Will you get over it already? You're filling the newsgroups up with
crap - apparently out of some weird need to downplay IBM's market
share.

Although an analysis of these trends is interesting - it certainly
isn't when subject to this kind of bullshit.

Just let it go....

buck

Buck ... your protest would be far more genuine if you just acknowledged
the fact that what Noon wrote is correct. These systems all started on
IBM mainframes. Ask me how I know. ;-)

--
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)