By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,287 Members | 1,309 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,287 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Database market share 2004

P: n/a
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 released by the Gartner Group on Monday.
With 34.1 percent of the overall market, IBM holds a slim margin over its closest
competitor, Oracle Corp., which maintains 33.7 percent of the overall market. Microsoft
Corp. follows up with 20 percent of the market. NCR Teradata Corp. controls 2.9 percent,
Sybase Inc. claims 2.3 percent and others hold 6.6 percent. ADVERTISEMENT
The market growth figure doubles that of RDBMS (relational DBMS) market growth in 2003,
which was 5 percent, according to Gartner Inc.'s Colleen Graham, who authored the report.
"[The growth] came a lot from BI, data warehousing and data analysis," she said. "You can
tell that if you look at [NCR]; they had really strong growth, and they're a
data-warehousing database. That's where we're seeing a lot of this come from."
The market grew from just under $7.1 billion in 2003 to nearly $7.8 billion in terms of new
license sales. The continuing weakness of the U.S. dollar artificially inflated market
growth to some degree, Graham said, accounting for some 3 to 4 percent of overall growth.
"[Overall market growth] was probably somewhere between 6 and 7 percent," she said, after
considering that sales outside of the United States, when converted to U.S. dollars,
contributed more to vendor revenue because of currency conversion, as opposed to increased
demand.
Microsoft and Teradata led in terms of overall growth, with 18 percent and 17 percent,
respectively. However, there was no clear winner in market share overall. Because the
difference between RDBMS revenue for IBM and Oracle was less than $30 million, it is
statistically too close to declare a winner, according to the report, titled "No Clear
Winner in Overall RDBMS Market Share Race."
Read details here about Oracle's PIM Data Hub.
Winner or no winner, vendors were quick to point out the rosy parts of the picture.
Willie Hardie, Oracle's senior director of Database Product Marketing, found evidence that
the market is buying into the database company's grid vision and its pushing of RAC (Real
Application Clusters) clustering on commodity servers running on the Linux platform.
"Forget about databases specifically and look at server sales," said Hardie, in Redwood
Shores, Calif. "The growth market in servers is in small servers, with clustering of small
servers. That matches closely to Oracle's grid model: don't buy big servers; cluster
together boxes running Linux or Windows. No doubt there's a trend in the industry moving in
that direction, somewhat reflected in Oracle's growth in 2004."
The market for RDBMS on Linux, meanwhile, is red-hot. While still a relatively small part of
the overall RDBMS market, the Linux segment grew 118 percent in 2004, more than doubling
from $300 million in 2003 to more than $650 million in 2004.
Gartner found that Oracle has a growing lead over IBM in this subsection of the market, with
growth of 155 percent. Oracle now controls 80.5 percent of the Linux RDBMS market, up from
69 percent a year ago. IBM, meanwhile, slipped in 2004, coming to rest at 16.5 percent of
the market from year-ago figures of 28.4 percent of the market.
The Gartner report pointed out that Linux RDBMS revenue includes sales of Oracle 9i RAC,
which adds about a 50 percent premium on top of regular RDBMS license fees for that company.
Bob Picciano, vice president of database servers for IBM, said Oracle's growing Linux lead
is artificially puffed up by those add-on RAC fees. "What Oracle is doing is, they're
migrating their own Unix base to the Linux platform," said Picciano, in Somers, N.Y. "In the
process, they're increasing the cost of software to those clients, by introducing the cost
of RAC."

"Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the RAC option," the Gartner
report states. "Almost 20 percent to 30 percent of Oracle RAC deployments are estimated to
be on the Linux platform."
Hardie said the demand for Linux shows no signs of abating, coming from virtually all the
vertical industries and including implementations of data warehousing on clustered RAC-that
clearly not being a solution for the needs of a niche, he said.
IBM is set to fight back with DB2 features that compete with RAC. In particular, the
company's release of "Stinger," the next version of DB2, is optimized for Version 2.6 of the
Linux kernel, a move that's geared toward helping database clusters scale higher and perform
faster.
It is also intended to better exploit the speed of 64-bit databases and servers that rely on
multiple processors.
IBM's promise is that such multiprocessor servers can be joined in Linux clusters, as with
DB2 ICE (Integrated Cluster Environment), an integrated package that combines DB2 and
eServer Linux Cluster 1350 (xSeries, 325, BladeCenter) to provide a solution that, according
to IBM, can cluster from two to 1,000 servers and pick up nodes at the rate of four per
hour.
Picciano also pointed to Stinger's HADR (High Availability and Disaster Recovery) as being
the key to IBM's ability to deliver high availability at a fraction of the cost of Oracle
RAC.
"With RAC, the client needs to license all the processors on both boxes, and they need to
license the RAC feature," he said. "With HADR, you pay for processors on the primary [box]
and for one processor on the standby box. So the cost savings is much greater."
Picciano said that HADR has helped IBM do battle in sales situations where IBM and Microsoft
are in the room. "We're winning 89.4 percent of the time we're engaging against Oracle and
Microsoft" according to Q1 2005 numbers, he said, thanks not only to HADR but also to a
retrained sales team and the decision to price servers at the chip level rather than the
core level.
Microsoft, predictably, scoffed at the growth of the Linux database market. "Look at it:
It's a small market," said Tom Rizzo, director of product management for SQL Server. "You'd
expect some growth there, from such a small base."
Rizzo pointed to the healthy growth in the Windows database market as evidence that Windows
is "eating away at the Linux camp" rather than the other way around. The RDBMS market on the
Windows server platform grew 10 percent in 2004. Microsoft's market share grew 18 percent in
this segment.
Click here to read more about the increasing market share of open-source database
PostgreSQL.
That gave Microsoft 50.9 percent of the Windows RDBMS market, up from 47.4 percent in 2003.
IBM posted a 4 percent decline in this market segment, which followed a nearly 12 percent
decline in 2003-a slippage Gartner attributed to weak adoption of DB2 8.
Graham said she was surprised to see Microsoft do so well, given that the release of SQL
Server 2005, code-named Yukon, has been delayed so often and so long.
"We do our forecast and say 'OK, each of these vendors, which is coming out with a new
product? Where's each one been in the product lifecycle?'" she said. "To see Microsoft have
growth this strong, even before they release Yukon, that struck me as interesting. People
aren't waiting."

Much of Microsoft's success likely goes back to the overall interest in BI, Graham said-a
premise that Rizzo seconded. "BI is a tremendous growth driver for us, especially Reporting
Services, which we've seen a ton of customers buying and deploying," he said.
"That's why we invested so heavily in BI technologies across SQL Server. We put a down
payment many years ago, and now it's paying off in terms of revenue growth," Rizzo added,
pointing to the company's release of OLAP (online analytical processing) services in 1998,
which was the first of a string of BI technologies integrated into the database itself.
"People looked at us like we were kind of crazy," Rizzo said. "[They asked,] 'Why is
Microsoft integrating BI into the database? Most people buy it separately.' We're saying .
integrate it seamlessly into the database. All the people who thought we had four heads and
eight eyes, you look at the strategies of our competitors, they're starting to go down the
same path we started down years ago."

Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
68 Replies


P: n/a
rkusenet wrote:
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
released by the Gartner Group on Monday.
With 34.1 percent of the overall market, IBM holds a slim margin over
its closest competitor, Oracle Corp., which maintains 33.7 percent of
the overall market. Microsoft Corp. follows up with 20 percent of the
market. NCR Teradata Corp. controls 2.9 percent, Sybase Inc. claims 2.3
percent and others hold 6.6 percent. ADVERTISEMENT
The market growth figure doubles that of RDBMS (relational DBMS) market
growth in 2003, which was 5 percent, according to Gartner Inc.'s Colleen
Graham, who authored the report.
"[The growth] came a lot from BI, data warehousing and data analysis,"
she said. "You can tell that if you look at [NCR]; they had really
strong growth, and they're a data-warehousing database. That's where
we're seeing a lot of this come from."
The market grew from just under $7.1 billion in 2003 to nearly $7.8
billion in terms of new license sales. The continuing weakness of the
U.S. dollar artificially inflated market growth to some degree, Graham
said, accounting for some 3 to 4 percent of overall growth.
"[Overall market growth] was probably somewhere between 6 and 7
percent," she said, after considering that sales outside of the United
States, when converted to U.S. dollars, contributed more to vendor
revenue because of currency conversion, as opposed to increased demand.
Microsoft and Teradata led in terms of overall growth, with 18 percent
and 17 percent, respectively. However, there was no clear winner in
market share overall. Because the difference between RDBMS revenue for
IBM and Oracle was less than $30 million, it is statistically too close
to declare a winner, according to the report, titled "No Clear Winner in
Overall RDBMS Market Share Race."
Read details here about Oracle's PIM Data Hub.
Winner or no winner, vendors were quick to point out the rosy parts of
the picture.
Willie Hardie, Oracle's senior director of Database Product Marketing,
found evidence that the market is buying into the database company's
grid vision and its pushing of RAC (Real Application Clusters)
clustering on commodity servers running on the Linux platform.
"Forget about databases specifically and look at server sales," said
Hardie, in Redwood Shores, Calif. "The growth market in servers is in
small servers, with clustering of small servers. That matches closely to
Oracle's grid model: don't buy big servers; cluster together boxes
running Linux or Windows. No doubt there's a trend in the industry
moving in that direction, somewhat reflected in Oracle's growth in 2004."
The market for RDBMS on Linux, meanwhile, is red-hot. While still a
relatively small part of the overall RDBMS market, the Linux segment
grew 118 percent in 2004, more than doubling from $300 million in 2003
to more than $650 million in 2004.
Gartner found that Oracle has a growing lead over IBM in this subsection
of the market, with growth of 155 percent. Oracle now controls 80.5
percent of the Linux RDBMS market, up from 69 percent a year ago. IBM,
meanwhile, slipped in 2004, coming to rest at 16.5 percent of the market
from year-ago figures of 28.4 percent of the market.
The Gartner report pointed out that Linux RDBMS revenue includes sales
of Oracle 9i RAC, which adds about a 50 percent premium on top of
regular RDBMS license fees for that company.
Bob Picciano, vice president of database servers for IBM, said Oracle's
growing Linux lead is artificially puffed up by those add-on RAC fees.
"What Oracle is doing is, they're migrating their own Unix base to the
Linux platform," said Picciano, in Somers, N.Y. "In the process, they're
increasing the cost of software to those clients, by introducing the
cost of RAC."

"Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the RAC
option," the Gartner report states. "Almost 20 percent to 30 percent of
Oracle RAC deployments are estimated to be on the Linux platform."
Hardie said the demand for Linux shows no signs of abating, coming from
virtually all the vertical industries and including implementations of
data warehousing on clustered RAC-that clearly not being a solution for
the needs of a niche, he said.
IBM is set to fight back with DB2 features that compete with RAC. In
particular, the company's release of "Stinger," the next version of DB2,
is optimized for Version 2.6 of the Linux kernel, a move that's geared
toward helping database clusters scale higher and perform faster.
It is also intended to better exploit the speed of 64-bit databases and
servers that rely on multiple processors.
IBM's promise is that such multiprocessor servers can be joined in Linux
clusters, as with DB2 ICE (Integrated Cluster Environment), an
integrated package that combines DB2 and eServer Linux Cluster 1350
(xSeries, 325, BladeCenter) to provide a solution that, according to
IBM, can cluster from two to 1,000 servers and pick up nodes at the rate
of four per hour.
Picciano also pointed to Stinger's HADR (High Availability and Disaster
Recovery) as being the key to IBM's ability to deliver high availability
at a fraction of the cost of Oracle RAC.
"With RAC, the client needs to license all the processors on both boxes,
and they need to license the RAC feature," he said. "With HADR, you pay
for processors on the primary [box] and for one processor on the standby
box. So the cost savings is much greater."
Picciano said that HADR has helped IBM do battle in sales situations
where IBM and Microsoft are in the room. "We're winning 89.4 percent of
the time we're engaging against Oracle and Microsoft" according to Q1
2005 numbers, he said, thanks not only to HADR but also to a retrained
sales team and the decision to price servers at the chip level rather
than the core level.
Microsoft, predictably, scoffed at the growth of the Linux database
market. "Look at it: It's a small market," said Tom Rizzo, director of
product management for SQL Server. "You'd expect some growth there, from
such a small base."
Rizzo pointed to the healthy growth in the Windows database market as
evidence that Windows is "eating away at the Linux camp" rather than the
other way around. The RDBMS market on the Windows server platform grew
10 percent in 2004. Microsoft's market share grew 18 percent in this
segment.
Click here to read more about the increasing market share of open-source
database PostgreSQL.
That gave Microsoft 50.9 percent of the Windows RDBMS market, up from
47.4 percent in 2003. IBM posted a 4 percent decline in this market
segment, which followed a nearly 12 percent decline in 2003-a slippage
Gartner attributed to weak adoption of DB2 8.
Graham said she was surprised to see Microsoft do so well, given that
the release of SQL Server 2005, code-named Yukon, has been delayed so
often and so long.
"We do our forecast and say 'OK, each of these vendors, which is coming
out with a new product? Where's each one been in the product
lifecycle?'" she said. "To see Microsoft have growth this strong, even
before they release Yukon, that struck me as interesting. People aren't
waiting."

Much of Microsoft's success likely goes back to the overall interest in
BI, Graham said-a premise that Rizzo seconded. "BI is a tremendous
growth driver for us, especially Reporting Services, which we've seen a
ton of customers buying and deploying," he said.
"That's why we invested so heavily in BI technologies across SQL Server.
We put a down payment many years ago, and now it's paying off in terms
of revenue growth," Rizzo added, pointing to the company's release of
OLAP (online analytical processing) services in 1998, which was the
first of a string of BI technologies integrated into the database itself.
"People looked at us like we were kind of crazy," Rizzo said. "[They
asked,] 'Why is Microsoft integrating BI into the database? Most people
buy it separately.' We're saying . integrate it seamlessly into the
database. All the people who thought we had four heads and eight eyes,
you look at the strategies of our competitors, they're starting to go
down the same path we started down years ago."


My only criticism of this is that it is backward ... not forward
looking. Well that and the fact that it is from Gartner Group which
means it is irrelevant.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
rkusenet wrote:
IBM is set to fight back with DB2 features that compete with RAC. In
particular, the company's release of "Stinger," the next version of DB2,


Did anybody else (other than me) read this to imply that Lisa doesn't
even know that Stinger is out ?
Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
Mark Townsend wrote:
rkusenet wrote:
IBM is set to fight back with DB2 features that compete with RAC. In
particular, the company's release of "Stinger," the next version of DB2,

Did anybody else (other than me) read this to imply that Lisa doesn't
even know that Stinger is out ?

...or at least she needs to do a better job proof reading.

--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
Daniel,

What makes this year different from any other? It's always
backwards-looking, but that's the only way to capture actual data.

Larry Edelstein

DA Morgan wrote:
rkusenet wrote:
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
released by the Gartner Group on Monday.
With 34.1 percent of the overall market, IBM holds a slim margin over
its closest competitor, Oracle Corp., which maintains 33.7 percent of
the overall market. Microsoft Corp. follows up with 20 percent of the
market. NCR Teradata Corp. controls 2.9 percent, Sybase Inc. claims
2.3 percent and others hold 6.6 percent. ADVERTISEMENT
The market growth figure doubles that of RDBMS (relational DBMS)
market growth in 2003, which was 5 percent, according to Gartner
Inc.'s Colleen Graham, who authored the report.
"[The growth] came a lot from BI, data warehousing and data analysis,"
she said. "You can tell that if you look at [NCR]; they had really
strong growth, and they're a data-warehousing database. That's where
we're seeing a lot of this come from."
The market grew from just under $7.1 billion in 2003 to nearly $7.8
billion in terms of new license sales. The continuing weakness of the
U.S. dollar artificially inflated market growth to some degree, Graham
said, accounting for some 3 to 4 percent of overall growth.
"[Overall market growth] was probably somewhere between 6 and 7
percent," she said, after considering that sales outside of the United
States, when converted to U.S. dollars, contributed more to vendor
revenue because of currency conversion, as opposed to increased demand.
Microsoft and Teradata led in terms of overall growth, with 18 percent
and 17 percent, respectively. However, there was no clear winner in
market share overall. Because the difference between RDBMS revenue for
IBM and Oracle was less than $30 million, it is statistically too
close to declare a winner, according to the report, titled "No Clear
Winner in Overall RDBMS Market Share Race."
Read details here about Oracle's PIM Data Hub.
Winner or no winner, vendors were quick to point out the rosy parts of
the picture.
Willie Hardie, Oracle's senior director of Database Product Marketing,
found evidence that the market is buying into the database company's
grid vision and its pushing of RAC (Real Application Clusters)
clustering on commodity servers running on the Linux platform.
"Forget about databases specifically and look at server sales," said
Hardie, in Redwood Shores, Calif. "The growth market in servers is in
small servers, with clustering of small servers. That matches closely
to Oracle's grid model: don't buy big servers; cluster together boxes
running Linux or Windows. No doubt there's a trend in the industry
moving in that direction, somewhat reflected in Oracle's growth in 2004."
The market for RDBMS on Linux, meanwhile, is red-hot. While still a
relatively small part of the overall RDBMS market, the Linux segment
grew 118 percent in 2004, more than doubling from $300 million in 2003
to more than $650 million in 2004.
Gartner found that Oracle has a growing lead over IBM in this
subsection of the market, with growth of 155 percent. Oracle now
controls 80.5 percent of the Linux RDBMS market, up from 69 percent a
year ago. IBM, meanwhile, slipped in 2004, coming to rest at 16.5
percent of the market from year-ago figures of 28.4 percent of the
market.
The Gartner report pointed out that Linux RDBMS revenue includes sales
of Oracle 9i RAC, which adds about a 50 percent premium on top of
regular RDBMS license fees for that company.
Bob Picciano, vice president of database servers for IBM, said
Oracle's growing Linux lead is artificially puffed up by those add-on
RAC fees. "What Oracle is doing is, they're migrating their own Unix
base to the Linux platform," said Picciano, in Somers, N.Y. "In the
process, they're increasing the cost of software to those clients, by
introducing the cost of RAC."

"Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the RAC
option," the Gartner report states. "Almost 20 percent to 30 percent
of Oracle RAC deployments are estimated to be on the Linux platform."
Hardie said the demand for Linux shows no signs of abating, coming
from virtually all the vertical industries and including
implementations of data warehousing on clustered RAC-that clearly not
being a solution for the needs of a niche, he said.
IBM is set to fight back with DB2 features that compete with RAC. In
particular, the company's release of "Stinger," the next version of
DB2, is optimized for Version 2.6 of the Linux kernel, a move that's
geared toward helping database clusters scale higher and perform faster.
It is also intended to better exploit the speed of 64-bit databases
and servers that rely on multiple processors.
IBM's promise is that such multiprocessor servers can be joined in
Linux clusters, as with DB2 ICE (Integrated Cluster Environment), an
integrated package that combines DB2 and eServer Linux Cluster 1350
(xSeries, 325, BladeCenter) to provide a solution that, according to
IBM, can cluster from two to 1,000 servers and pick up nodes at the
rate of four per hour.
Picciano also pointed to Stinger's HADR (High Availability and
Disaster Recovery) as being the key to IBM's ability to deliver high
availability at a fraction of the cost of Oracle RAC.
"With RAC, the client needs to license all the processors on both
boxes, and they need to license the RAC feature," he said. "With HADR,
you pay for processors on the primary [box] and for one processor on
the standby box. So the cost savings is much greater."
Picciano said that HADR has helped IBM do battle in sales situations
where IBM and Microsoft are in the room. "We're winning 89.4 percent
of the time we're engaging against Oracle and Microsoft" according to
Q1 2005 numbers, he said, thanks not only to HADR but also to a
retrained sales team and the decision to price servers at the chip
level rather than the core level.
Microsoft, predictably, scoffed at the growth of the Linux database
market. "Look at it: It's a small market," said Tom Rizzo, director of
product management for SQL Server. "You'd expect some growth there,
from such a small base."
Rizzo pointed to the healthy growth in the Windows database market as
evidence that Windows is "eating away at the Linux camp" rather than
the other way around. The RDBMS market on the Windows server platform
grew 10 percent in 2004. Microsoft's market share grew 18 percent in
this segment.
Click here to read more about the increasing market share of
open-source database PostgreSQL.
That gave Microsoft 50.9 percent of the Windows RDBMS market, up from
47.4 percent in 2003. IBM posted a 4 percent decline in this market
segment, which followed a nearly 12 percent decline in 2003-a slippage
Gartner attributed to weak adoption of DB2 8.
Graham said she was surprised to see Microsoft do so well, given that
the release of SQL Server 2005, code-named Yukon, has been delayed so
often and so long.
"We do our forecast and say 'OK, each of these vendors, which is
coming out with a new product? Where's each one been in the product
lifecycle?'" she said. "To see Microsoft have growth this strong, even
before they release Yukon, that struck me as interesting. People
aren't waiting."

Much of Microsoft's success likely goes back to the overall interest
in BI, Graham said-a premise that Rizzo seconded. "BI is a tremendous
growth driver for us, especially Reporting Services, which we've seen
a ton of customers buying and deploying," he said.
"That's why we invested so heavily in BI technologies across SQL
Server. We put a down payment many years ago, and now it's paying off
in terms of revenue growth," Rizzo added, pointing to the company's
release of OLAP (online analytical processing) services in 1998, which
was the first of a string of BI technologies integrated into the
database itself.
"People looked at us like we were kind of crazy," Rizzo said. "[They
asked,] 'Why is Microsoft integrating BI into the database? Most
people buy it separately.' We're saying . integrate it seamlessly into
the database. All the people who thought we had four heads and eight
eyes, you look at the strategies of our competitors, they're starting
to go down the same path we started down years ago."

My only criticism of this is that it is backward ... not forward
looking. Well that and the fact that it is from Gartner Group which
means it is irrelevant.

Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a
Larry wrote:
Daniel,

What makes this year different from any other? It's always
backwards-looking, but that's the only way to capture actual data.

Larry Edelstein


Gartner also makes predictions. Not accurate ones but predictions.

And if one looks at previous Gartner Group statements, 1, 2, 3 years
later, what were they worth? I mean except to Gartner Group's revenues?
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #6

P: n/a
"DA Morgan" <da******@psoug.org> wrote in message
news:1117485555.324290@yasure...
Larry wrote:
Daniel,

What makes this year different from any other? It's always
backwards-looking, but that's the only way to capture actual data.

Larry Edelstein


Gartner also makes predictions. Not accurate ones but predictions.


Don't know if it's the same in the US, but over here in Blighty the
supposedly independent analysts Gartner have attracted a lot of criticism
for advocating off-shoring in their editorials whilst at the same time
having an active consultancy arm that, er, helps companies off-shore!
Nov 12 '05 #7

P: n/a
Neil Truby wrote:
"DA Morgan" <da******@psoug.org> wrote in message
news:1117485555.324290@yasure...
Larry wrote:
Daniel,

What makes this year different from any other? It's always
backwards-looking, but that's the only way to capture actual data.

Larry Edelstein


Gartner also makes predictions. Not accurate ones but predictions.

Don't know if it's the same in the US, but over here in Blighty the
supposedly independent analysts Gartner have attracted a lot of criticism
for advocating off-shoring in their editorials whilst at the same time
having an active consultancy arm that, er, helps companies off-shore!


In my opinion, and it is only "my" opinion ... Gartner Group has the
ethics of a great white shark in a feeding frenzy. Not sure about
"here in Blighty" but they are most certainly a blight: If not a boil.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #8

P: n/a
rkusenet wrote:
respectively. However, there was no clear winner in market share overall. Because the
difference between RDBMS revenue for IBM and Oracle was less than $30 million, it is
statistically too close to declare a winner, according to the report, titled "No Clear
Winner in Overall RDBMS Market Share Race."
Shewt! Brace yourselves, here comes another IBM aquisition!
If all else fails, BUY market share. Who will it be this time?
Teradata?

"Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the RAC option," the Gartner
report states.
They gotta be joking...

to IBM, can cluster from two to 1,000 servers and pick up nodes at the rate of four per
hour.
Attaboy! Let's hope they don't "pick their noses" as well...

are in the room. "We're winning 89.4 percent of the time we're engaging against Oracle and
Microsoft" according to Q1 2005 numbers, he said, thanks not only to HADR but also to a
retrained sales team and the decision to price servers at the chip level rather than the
core level.
No doubt helped as well by the false "Oracle vars" who end up
selling exclusively IBM solutions. Want examples?

We're saying .
integrate it seamlessly into the database. All the people who thought we had four heads and
eight eyes, you look at the strategies of our competitors, they're starting to go down the
same path we started down years ago."


Amazing. IE versus Netscape all over again. And people
STILL buy this crap...
Im summary, another typical Gartner report: wanna see who
is in front? Who pays more?

Nov 12 '05 #9

P: n/a
Noons wrote:
"Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the RAC option," the Gartner
report states.
They gotta be joking...


They aren't joking ... they ARE a joke.

If Oracle was selling that many RAC licenses IBM would be out of
business.
We're saying .
integrate it seamlessly into the database. All the people who thought we had four heads and
eight eyes, you look at the strategies of our competitors, they're starting to go down the
same path we started down years ago."


Amazing. IE versus Netscape all over again. And people
STILL buy this crap...


Worked once: And as P.T. Barnum said ....
Im summary, another typical Gartner report: wanna see who
is in front? Who pays more?


That's the way the work. Opinions for sale to the highest bidder.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #10

P: n/a
In message <11**********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups .com>,
Noons <wi*******@yahoo.com.au> writes
rkusenet wrote:
respectively. However, there was no clear winner in market share
overall. Because the
difference between RDBMS revenue for IBM and Oracle was less than $30
million, it is
statistically too close to declare a winner, according to the report,
titled "No Clear
Winner in Overall RDBMS Market Share Race."
Shewt! Brace yourselves, here comes another IBM aquisition!
If all else fails, BUY market share. Who will it be this time?
Teradata?

"Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the
RAC option," the Gartner
report states.


They gotta be joking...


You *can't* buy Oracle without the RAC option. Well you can, if you buy
Standard Edition One, but Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition both
include RAC. I don't know how much market share SEO[1] has, but you
could say that almost all Oracle licenses include RAC.

1: Probably negligible in the type of company Gartner is addressing.

--
Jim Smith
Because of their persistent net abuse, I ignore mail from
these domains (among others) .yahoo.com .hotmail.com .kr .cn .tw
For an explanation see <http://www.jimsmith.demon.co.uk/spam>
Nov 12 '05 #11

P: n/a
Jim Smith wrote:

You *can't* buy Oracle without the RAC option. Well you can, if you buy
Standard Edition One, but Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition both
include RAC. I don't know how much market share SEO[1] has, but you
could say that almost all Oracle licenses include RAC.
Care to rephrase that? Ain't making much sense
right now... :)

If it was the case that one "couldn't buy Oracle without RAC",
then why point out that "few users are buying Oracle without
RAC for Linux"?
1: Probably negligible in the type of company Gartner is addressing.


Ah, but they put NO qualifiers in their "addressing",
do they? Therefore, others might conclude it's the
"state of the overall market". When it isn't, by any stretch
of the imagination.

Nov 12 '05 #12

P: n/a
Noons wrote:
Jim Smith wrote:
You *can't* buy Oracle without the RAC option. Well you can, if you buy
Standard Edition One, but Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition both
include RAC. I don't know how much market share SEO[1] has, but you
could say that almost all Oracle licenses include RAC.

Care to rephrase that? Ain't making much sense
right now... :)

If it was the case that one "couldn't buy Oracle without RAC",
then why point out that "few users are buying Oracle without
RAC for Linux"?


Microsoft used to do this with Microsoft Office, I believe. They used to
package SQL Server with Microsoft Office (maybe they still do) and then
whenever an Office license was sold, it automatically resulted in a SQL
Server sales whether it was being used or not.
1: Probably negligible in the type of company Gartner is addressing.

Ah, but they put NO qualifiers in their "addressing",
do they? Therefore, others might conclude it's the
"state of the overall market". When it isn't, by any stretch
of the imagination.

Larry
Nov 12 '05 #13

P: n/a
Jim Smith wrote:
"Few users are acquiring Oracle for the Linux platform without the
RAC option," the Gartner
report states.


They gotta be joking...


You *can't* buy Oracle without the RAC option. Well you can, if you buy
Standard Edition One, but Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition both
include RAC.


Oh how I wish your statement was true: Alas it is not. SE includes a
very limited RAC license and only with 10g. EE has never and does not
now include RAC.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #14

P: n/a


"rkusenet" <us*******@gmail.com> wrote:
Click here to read more about the increasing market share of open-source database
PostgreSQL.

You would swear from this article that there were no other vendors of
db's other than Microsoft, IBM and Oracle.

Where was any mention of Sybase? Pervasive? IBM's Informix offerings?
Borland's Interbase? Someone must buy these products! What about MySQL
and/or Firebird? MySQL is not free for commercial use - what's its
market share? Pervasive have also started to support PostgreSQL, as
has another springup (other efforts to make money out of PostgreSQL
have failed), but companies can do it because of the FreeBSD licence.

No mention either of any revenue streams for companies that have
support contracts for any of the open source dbs.

From the MySQL site
-----------------------------
The MySQL database server is the world's most popular open source
database. Over six million installations use MySQL to power
high-volume Web sites and other critical business systems including
industry-leaders like The Associated Press, Yahoo, NASA, Sabre
Holdings and Suzuki.
--------------------------------

That has to be market share in some shape or form, but was completely
ignored in the article which only mentioned PostgreSQL, and even then
only provided a link, with no mention of its market share!

Paul...
--

plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__

XP Pro, SP 2,

Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.)
Interbase 6.0.2.0;

When asking database related questions, please give other posters
some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.
The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!").
Thanks.

Furthermore, As a courtesy to those who spend
time analyzing and attempting to help, please
do not top post.
Nov 12 '05 #15

P: n/a
Paul wrote:

"rkusenet" <us*******@gmail.com> wrote:

Click here to read more about the increasing market share of open-source database
PostgreSQL.


You would swear from this article that there were no other vendors of
db's other than Microsoft, IBM and Oracle.

Where was any mention of Sybase? Pervasive? IBM's Informix offerings?
Borland's Interbase? Someone must buy these products! What about MySQL
and/or Firebird? MySQL is not free for commercial use - what's its
market share? Pervasive have also started to support PostgreSQL, as
has another springup (other efforts to make money out of PostgreSQL
have failed), but companies can do it because of the FreeBSD licence.

No mention either of any revenue streams for companies that have
support contracts for any of the open source dbs.


Apparently you haven't noticed how some of us from have been pointing
out the fact that a Gartner Report is worth nothing except to Garnter.
The company sells its opinions on the same basis that politicians sell
their votes: To the highest bidder.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #16

P: n/a
>> You would swear from this article that there were no other vendors of
db's other than Microsoft, IBM and Oracle.

Charts showing DBMS market share for 2003 and 2004:
http://www.SQLSummit.com/Trends/DBMSMarket.htm

Application server market share for 2003 and 2004:
http://www.SQLSummit.com/Trends/AppServerMarket.htm

Nov 12 '05 #17

P: n/a
Paul wrote:
Where was any mention of Sybase? Pervasive? IBM's Informix offerings?
Yes, in the actual Gartner report, not the eWeek diluted one. They
break out Informix revenues. Oracle beats IBM by a few points if you
don't count Informix.
Borland's Interbase? Someone must buy these products! What about MySQL
and/or Firebird? MySQL is not free for commercial use - what's its
market share? Pervasive have also started to support PostgreSQL, as
MySQL *is* free for internal commercial use, it's just not supported.
Companies like Google make a mint by modifying GPL software and not
re-releasing the source because they don't ship a product, they offer a
service. IF they do release components, it's out of a spirit of
community giving ;)

To answer your question, Gartner does have an "others" category at
around 6.6% revenue or $517.1 million, which about the same share as
Sybase, Teradata, and Informix combined. This is down 5.2%
year-over-year, BTW. I assume this includes revenues from all the
smaller vendors, but I don't really know.

I'm not sure it matters that much: MySQL AB only had revenues of $5
million in 2002 -- at best they're $10-12 million now. (reference ..
http://uk.builder.com/architecture/d...276852,00.htm).

To give you a reference point, RedHat had revenues of $124 million in
2004.
No mention either of any revenue streams for companies that have
support contracts for any of the open source dbs.
This measures "new license revenue" -- not support contracts. This is
a general problem with the enterprise software space, in that analysts
(and Wall Street) determine the health of a company purely based on its
"new licenses", not counting support or upgrades under maintenance.

I don't know how MySQL AB's accounting rules work, but it's hard to
fight against an entire industry's accounting practices. They may
suck, but they make sense given the value system of many enterprise
software buyers.

But also note that if they measured database maintenance, support &
services contracts, IBM and Oracle make billions off those too, so I'm
not sure that's the answer to give OSS databases more "cred".
That has to be market share in some shape or form, but was completely
ignored in the article which only mentioned PostgreSQL, and even then
only provided a link, with no mention of its market share!


Again, it's a measure of new revenue market share. I'd say it's
pretty accurate on those terms, but can be misleading because these
press articles never quite paint the whole picture (Oracle leads in
UNIX, Linux, and is #2 on Windows -- yet IBM still is #1? Hmmmmmmm.)

Whether revenue is relevant, of course is debatable. But what's a
market without dollars? Does unit share really make that much sense
(especially in the embedded market)?

Look at it this way: most full time Linux or MySQL developers are
subsidised by venture or public capital today (MySQL has 17 million EUR
if I recall). They need license revenue to sustain that investment or
it's effectively going to be supported and developed by hobbiests,
college students, and engineers with an itch to scratch. That model
works well enough for creating a good product (like Linux up to 1.2
arguably). But it doesn't quite give one warm fuzzies about their
ability topple the big boys.

Anyway, back to making fun of Gartner. There's a nice disclaimer at
the bottom of the report: "The information contained herein has been
obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Gartner disclaims all
warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such
information. Gartner shall have no liability for errors, omissions or
inadequacies in the information contained herein or for interpretations
thereof. The opinions expressed herein are subject to change without
notice."

yay.

Cheers
Stu

Nov 12 '05 #18

P: n/a
Stu Charlton wrote:
Anyway, back to making fun of Gartner. There's a nice disclaimer at
the bottom of the report: "The information contained herein has been
obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Gartner disclaims all
warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such
information. Gartner shall have no liability for errors, omissions or
inadequacies in the information contained herein or for interpretations
thereof. The opinions expressed herein are subject to change without
notice."


Which pretty much says it all ... a Gartner report is worthless except
to Gartner's revenue stream. I don't know why anyone pays any attention
to them.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #19

P: n/a
Stu Charlton wrote:
Look at it this way: most full time Linux or MySQL developers are
subsidised by venture or public capital today (MySQL has 17 million EUR
if I recall). They need license revenue to sustain that investment or
it's effectively going to be supported and developed by hobbiests,
college students, and engineers with an itch to scratch.


The number of downloads is probably a better measure of the influence
of open source products. Trying to use capitalization or revenue as a
yardstick is problematical.

Much of the highly-visible open source software (MySQL, JBoss, Apache,
Eclipse, Linux) has had an infusion of venture capital or a commitment
of resources by large computer companies. For example, IBM committed to
spending more than $1 billion on Linux and donated servers and software
to the Apache and Eclipse foundations.

The economic effect of open source isn't limited to direct revenue from
licenses and support contracts. Companies that manufacture computers
know that open source contributes to the revenue stream from selling
hardware (e.g., 40 million web servers running Apache).

Nov 12 '05 #20

P: n/a
ke*******@compuserve.com wrote:

Wow I thought compuserve was dead or was it compuware or both?

Nov 12 '05 #21

P: n/a
ke*******@compuserve.com wrote:

The number of downloads is probably a better measure of the influence
of open source products. Trying to use capitalization or revenue as a
yardstick is problematical.
Agreed, but arguably "number of downloads" is moreso. I remember back
during the dot-com boom, that was how ISVs measured their success.
Didn't get them very far...
Much of the highly-visible open source software (MySQL, JBoss, Apache,
Eclipse, Linux) has had an infusion of venture capital or a commitment
of resources by large computer companies. For example, IBM committed to
spending more than $1 billion on Linux and donated servers and software
to the Apache and Eclipse foundations.
Absolutely (I mentioned the 17m EUR for mySQL). And it could very
well be that OSS is sustained through capital inflows without lots of
direct revenue to provide a return.
The economic effect of open source isn't limited to direct revenue from
licenses and support contracts. Companies that manufacture computers
know that open source contributes to the revenue stream from selling
hardware (e.g., 40 million web servers running Apache).


Great, but since the only major integrated hardware & software
companies are Sun & IBM, that's a rather limited set of companies.
Whither the ISV? What happens to Oracle, Symantec/Veritas, BEA, etc?
Do they need to get into the hardware business? I think not. And
besides, I don't think IBM really wants to lose DB2 share to mySQL.

So the question is whether OSS eventually sucks the direct revenue out
of the market. If there are enough vested interests to fund that sort
of effort, sure, it could happen. Apache is a great example of that
effect. I think the next area probably will be operating systems.
Databases will take longer, if ever.

Cheers
Stu

Nov 12 '05 #22

P: n/a
Stu Charlton wrote:

So the question is whether OSS eventually sucks the direct revenue out
of the market. If there are enough vested interests to fund that sort
of effort, sure, it could happen. Apache is a great example of that
effect. I think the next area probably will be operating systems.
Databases will take longer, if ever.


I think databases will happen sooner than you think.
Hardware is getting cheaper while getting faster,
storage is getting cheaper while getting faster
OSS Databases are getting faster and more stable while still being free.
The one point missing in OSS databases is support.
It's so damn hard to get any support on OSS databases.

That's why many companies still go for the mainstream databases,
for the false sense of safety (I pay for it so it must be good) and for
the support (which I still think is one of the most important issues).

-R-
Nov 12 '05 #23

P: n/a
Jurgen Haan wrote:
The one point missing in OSS databases is support.
It's so damn hard to get any support on OSS databases.

That's why many companies still go for the mainstream databases,
for the false sense of safety (I pay for it so it must be good) and for
the support (which I still think is one of the most important issues).

-R-


There is another important reason too: Instrumentation. If they are
slow diagnosing why is a question of making guesses. That may be a
reasonable approach when supporting a small non-commercial web site.
It is a non-starter when talking terabytes and a requirement for 7x24.
And then there's that little problem with government requirements
around audits. They just aren't ready for prime-time.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #24

P: n/a


DA Morgan <da******@psoug.org> wrote:

There is another important reason too: Instrumentation. If they are
slow diagnosing why is a question of making guesses. That may be a
reasonable approach when supporting a small non-commercial web site.
It is a non-starter when talking terabytes and a requirement for 7x24.
And then there's that little problem with government requirements
around audits. They just aren't ready for prime-time.

I have worked for a company (big player in its field) and had an
interview with another (a giant in its field) where they had systems
that ran on all of the major db's - SQL Server, Oracle, DB2 and
Sybase.

These db's contain(ed) neither triggers, SPs, PL/SQL, Transact SQL or
any other proprietary features of any of these db's. The only coding
that varied between the db's was how to get an
autoinc/generator/sequence value and that was in some sort of middle
layer. They did make use of DRI in the db creation scripts.
I'm not saying that that's a good thing (in fact I'm appalled), but
the fact of the matter is that many companies pay for expensive db's
when in fact they are little more than bitbuckets. I think that it's
only a matter of time before the IT industry is going to wake up to
the reality that (at least as far as *_I_* have seen) very little of
the capacity of an Oracle or DB2 is actually being used and make the
switch to cheaper or Open Source db's.

Hence my .sig - I am trying to learn Oracle because that's where the
jobs are, being DBA to underutilised db's... surfing here I come...
8-)

Paul...
--

plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__

XP Pro, SP 2,

Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.)
Interbase 6.0.2.0;

When asking database related questions, please give other posters
some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.
The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!").
Thanks.

Furthermore, As a courtesy to those who spend
time analysing and attempting to help, please
do not top post.
Nov 12 '05 #25

P: n/a
Paul wrote:
DA Morgan <da******@psoug.org> wrote:

There is another important reason too: Instrumentation. If they are
slow diagnosing why is a question of making guesses. That may be a
reasonable approach when supporting a small non-commercial web site.
It is a non-starter when talking terabytes and a requirement for
7x24. And then there's that little problem with government
requirements around audits. They just aren't ready for prime-time.

I have worked for a company (big player in its field) and had an
interview with another (a giant in its field) where they had systems
that ran on all of the major db's - SQL Server, Oracle, DB2 and
Sybase.

These db's contain(ed) neither triggers, SPs, PL/SQL, Transact SQL or
any other proprietary features of any of these db's. The only coding
that varied between the db's was how to get an
autoinc/generator/sequence value and that was in some sort of middle
layer. They did make use of DRI in the db creation scripts.
I'm not saying that that's a good thing (in fact I'm appalled), but
the fact of the matter is that many companies pay for expensive db's
when in fact they are little more than bitbuckets.


But presumably large bit buckets. I'm not very up to date on PostGres and
mysql features, but do OSS DB's support all these management operations
that can be done in parallel to production operation? In Oracle you can
create partitions on the fly without interrupting operations etc.
I think that it's
only a matter of time before the IT industry is going to wake up to
the reality that (at least as far as *_I_* have seen) very little of
the capacity of an Oracle or DB2 is actually being used and make the
switch to cheaper or Open Source db's.


If they deliver the same robustness - it's not only about functionality
features.

Kind regards

robert

Nov 12 '05 #26

P: n/a
Paul wrote:
I'm not saying that that's a good thing (in fact I'm appalled),
We both are.
but
the fact of the matter is that many companies pay for expensive db's
when in fact they are little more than bitbuckets.

Paul...


I have seen this too. But the solution is not to purchase an inadequate
product. The solution is to replace inadequate IT management and, if
necessary, inadequate IT staff.

If you can use 3x5 cards don't buy a computer.
If you can use a flat file don't use a commercial RDBMS
But if data is a valuable asset it needs to be treated as one.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #27

P: n/a
"Jurgen Haan" <ju****@fake.dom> wrote in message
news:42***********************@news.xs4all.nl...
Stu Charlton wrote:

So the question is whether OSS eventually sucks the direct revenue out
of the market. If there are enough vested interests to fund that sort
of effort, sure, it could happen. Apache is a great example of that
effect. I think the next area probably will be operating systems.
Databases will take longer, if ever.


I think databases will happen sooner than you think.
Hardware is getting cheaper while getting faster,
storage is getting cheaper while getting faster
OSS Databases are getting faster and more stable while still being free.
The one point missing in OSS databases is support.
It's so damn hard to get any support on OSS databases.

That's why many companies still go for the mainstream databases,
for the false sense of safety (I pay for it so it must be good) and for
the support (which I still think is one of the most important issues).


There is a very widespread perception that open-source operating systems -
RedHat for example - do not provide adequate support either. We have
encountered many risk-adverse users who would rather stick with Sun, HP or
IBM because of the absence of demarcation disputes between the OS and
hardware support vendors.
Nov 12 '05 #28

P: n/a


"Neil Truby" <ne********@ardenta.com> wrote:

There is a very widespread perception that open-source operating systems -
RedHat for example - do not provide adequate support either. We have
encountered many risk-adverse users who would rather stick with Sun, HP or
IBM because of the absence of demarcation disputes between the OS and
hardware support vendors.

Given that computers are becoming more and more of a commodity, that
begs the question of why Red Hat doesn't supply PC's (for example) and
guarantee both the hardware and s/ware. I believe that one can
purchase Dell machines with Red Hat preinstalled - I would imagine
that getting support for this config would not be difficult?

Paul...

--

plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__

XP Pro, SP 2,

Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.)
Interbase 6.0.2.0;

When asking database related questions, please give other posters
some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.
The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!").
Thanks.

Furthermore, As a courtesy to those who spend
time analysing and attempting to help, please
do not top post.
Nov 12 '05 #29

P: n/a


"Robert Klemme" <bo******@gmx.net> wrote:
I'm not saying that that's a good thing (in fact I'm appalled), but
the fact of the matter is that many companies pay for expensive db's
when in fact they are little more than bitbuckets.
But presumably large bit buckets.

Indeed.

I'm not very up to date on PostGres

http://www.postgresql.org/about/advantages

and mysql features,

MySQL features can be got from their site. They only recently
introducted DRI, triggers, SP's and a whole raft of other stuff which
take it out of the "toy" db, good only for serving 100 web pages a
day. I'd wait a while to see if the truckload of new features that
they've introduced work properly.

but do OSS DB's support all these management operations
that can be done in parallel to production operation? In Oracle you can
create partitions on the fly without interrupting operations etc.

OSS db's trail behind the likes of Oracle obviously, but how many
people actually require hot repartitioning? I don't think PGSQL
supports this (they introduced tablespaces in version 8), so maybe
they trail in terms of functionality.

They are ambitious and have lots of plans

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.TODO.html
I have on occasion gone into work on a Saturday/Sunday to perform
large scale operations on db's other than Oracle which couldn't be
done hot. I got double pay and a day in lieu - I agree that it's
better if the db can do it on the fly, but it's an issue which can be
worked around. What did Oracle practitioners do before this became
possible?

I think that it's
only a matter of time before the IT industry is going to wake up to
the reality that (at least as far as *_I_* have seen) very little of
the capacity of an Oracle or DB2 is actually being used and make the
switch to cheaper or Open Source db's.

If they deliver the same robustness - it's not only about functionality
features.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/app...9173013,00.htm

suggests robustness to me. Firebird is also very solid, having 20
years of commercial development behind it.
Paul...

robert

--

plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__

XP Pro, SP 2,

Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.)
Interbase 6.0.2.0;

When asking database related questions, please give other posters
some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.
The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!").
Thanks.

Furthermore, As a courtesy to those who spend
time analysing and attempting to help, please
do not top post.
Nov 12 '05 #30

P: n/a


DA Morgan <da******@psoug.org> wrote:

but
the fact of the matter is that many companies pay for expensive db's
when in fact they are little more than bitbuckets.

I have seen this too. But the solution is not to purchase an inadequate
product. The solution is to replace inadequate IT management and, if
necessary, inadequate IT staff.

What would your solution be in the case of a company that has to
support 4 db backends, with issues like clients who say "We've damn
well paid for X, so if your system doesn't do X, we'll purchase from
somebody who does"?

4 times the programming, 4 times the testing, the potential for the
introduction of bugs is increased almost exponentially.

If you can use 3x5 cards don't buy a computer.
If you can use a flat file don't use a commercial RDBMS
But if data is a valuable asset it needs to be treated as one.

Oh, the data is valuable alright and in use by Blue Chip companies
across the world, many of whom would be clients of a certain large
aerospace manufacturing company situated in Washington State that you
can't talk about - United Airlines is an example of such client.

It could well be that the UA dba's are tearing their hair out, but
they're probably not the ones who made the purchasing decision about
the s/ware, and rocking the boat mightn't do their careers any good.

I once worked for a company that had paid approx. 500.000 dollars (+
50.000 a year support) for a programme that a colleague and I could
have written in 6 - 9 months (well, the functionality we actually
used, anyway). One of the tables had 35.000 (that's right thirty five
thousand fields) - when I tried to get the system dumped (most of what
it was supposed to be doing was in fact being done by people in Ops
using Excel), I was chastised when I was overpersistent. When I turned
in my resignation, the company folded 3 months later. The company that
sold the rubbish programme is celebrating it's 22nd birthday.
Paul...
--

plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__

XP Pro, SP 2,

Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.)
Interbase 6.0.2.0;

When asking database related questions, please give other posters
some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.
The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!").
Thanks.

Furthermore, As a courtesy to those who spend
time analysing and attempting to help, please
do not top post.
Nov 12 '05 #31

P: n/a
"Paul" <pa*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:68********************************@4ax.com...


"Neil Truby" <ne********@ardenta.com> wrote:

There is a very widespread perception that open-source operating systems -
RedHat for example - do not provide adequate support either. We have
encountered many risk-adverse users who would rather stick with Sun, HP or
IBM because of the absence of demarcation disputes between the OS and
hardware support vendors.

Given that computers are becoming more and more of a commodity, that
begs the question of why Red Hat doesn't supply PC's (for example) and
guarantee both the hardware and s/ware. I believe that one can
purchase Dell machines with Red Hat preinstalled - I would imagine
that getting support for this config would not be difficult?


What a great example! I have a customer in Newcastle (under Lyme, not upon
Tyne) who is running OnLine on RedHat on Dell. Needless to say the Online
performs perfectly, but the box sporaically and spontaneously reboots.
RedHat say its a problem with the hardwre and they should upgrade the
firmware. Dell say it's a problem with the OS and they should patch it.
The customer wishes he'd bought IBM, or Sun, or HP ....

The point is you can buy support for it, but that doesn't avoid
inter-supplier finger-pointing ...
Nov 12 '05 #32

P: n/a
Neil Truby wrote:
There is a very widespread perception that open-source operating systems -
RedHat for example - do not provide adequate support either. We have
encountered many risk-adverse users who would rather stick with Sun, HP or
IBM because of the absence of demarcation disputes between the OS and
hardware support vendors.


Seen that too. I think that is one of the things fueling the interest in
Apple. An open source operating system that is fully supported.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #33

P: n/a
Paul wrote:
Firebird is also very solid, having 20
years of commercial development behind it.


But that is not enough. Here in the US one MUST think Sarbanes-Oxley.
If you are not you are at huge risk of finding yourself discussing
your lack of consideration with federal law enforcement officers while
under oath.

Systems that are "solid" are not necessarily SarbOx compliant. We are at
this moment watching a vendor whose upcoming product release seems to be
an unwitting attempt at self-destruction over what many are seeing
as an inability to be SarbOx compliant. The buzz is all over the big
accounting firms and consultancies right now.

Note: In an effort to keep flaming out of this thread no I will not name
the product.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #34

P: n/a


Paul wrote:
"Neil Truby" <ne********@ardenta.com> wrote:

There is a very widespread perception that open-source operating systems -
RedHat for example - do not provide adequate support either. We have
encountered many risk-adverse users who would rather stick with Sun, HP or
IBM because of the absence of demarcation disputes between the OS and
hardware support vendors.

Given that computers are becoming more and more of a commodity, that
begs the question of why Red Hat doesn't supply PC's (for example) and
guarantee both the hardware and s/ware. I believe that one can
purchase Dell machines with Red Hat preinstalled - I would imagine
that getting support for this config would not be difficult?


they gotta do just the hardware first:
http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/commen...2/81712/287/12

jg
--
@home.com is bogus. "We thought it would be quite neat to do work on
piranhas because so little is known about them. But this notion that
they were fearsome fish, frightened of nothing - we had to revise
that. They're basically like regular fish - with large teeth." - Anne
Magurran

Nov 12 '05 #35

P: n/a
Paul wrote:
I have seen this too. But the solution is not to purchase an inadequate
product. The solution is to replace inadequate IT management and, if
necessary, inadequate IT staff.


What would your solution be in the case of a company that has to
support 4 db backends, with issues like clients who say "We've damn
well paid for X, so if your system doesn't do X, we'll purchase from
somebody who does"?

4 times the programming, 4 times the testing, the potential for the
introduction of bugs is increased almost exponentially.


US or other country? It matters.

In the US we invite the CFO to the meeting. We say something like this:
"The current system is not SarbOx compliant. Would you rather spend
money on being compliant with a federal law or risk going to jail."

So far not a single CFO I have met was willing to risk his or her own
neck. Nor would I in their position.
If you can use 3x5 cards don't buy a computer.
If you can use a flat file don't use a commercial RDBMS
But if data is a valuable asset it needs to be treated as one.


Oh, the data is valuable alright and in use by Blue Chip companies
across the world, many of whom would be clients of a certain large
aerospace manufacturing company situated in Washington State that you
can't talk about - United Airlines is an example of such client.

It could well be that the UA dba's are tearing their hair out, but
they're probably not the ones who made the purchasing decision about
the s/ware, and rocking the boat mightn't do their careers any good.

Paul...


No but on purely theoretical grounds, because I know we are NOT talking
about United Airlines, they MUST be compliant with Sarbanes-Oxley.
Compliance is not optional ... it is mandatory.

So refer to the simulated conversation above. Management can not and
will not break federal law to save a few dollars. It just isn't going
to happen. Not after Enron. Not after WorldCom. Not after ....
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #36

P: n/a
DA Morgan wrote:
In the US we invite the CFO to the meeting. We say something like this:
"The current system is not SarbOx compliant. Would you rather spend
money on being compliant with a federal law or risk going to jail."

So far not a single CFO I have met was willing to risk his or her own
neck. Nor would I in their position.


Let's see a list of CFO names or company names where you have been
involved in a discussion like this or should we guess that this is
"hypothetical" or a contrived example.

Nov 12 '05 #37

P: n/a
hpuxrac wrote:
DA Morgan wrote:

In the US we invite the CFO to the meeting. We say something like this:
"The current system is not SarbOx compliant. Would you rather spend
money on being compliant with a federal law or risk going to jail."

So far not a single CFO I have met was willing to risk his or her own
neck. Nor would I in their position.

Let's see a list of CFO names or company names where you have been
involved in a discussion like this or should we guess that this is
"hypothetical" or a contrived example.


Not contrived but protected by NDA when it comes to legal compliance
and security issues: This is legal compliance so the names will not
be divulged.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #38

P: n/a
DA Morgan wrote:
Jurgen Haan wrote: There is another important reason too: Instrumentation. If they are
slow diagnosing why is a question of making guesses. That may be a
reasonable approach when supporting a small non-commercial web site.
It is a non-starter when talking terabytes and a requirement for 7x24.
And then there's that little problem with government requirements
around audits. They just aren't ready for prime-time.


24x7 is actually no problem with OSS db's like Postgres.
At the company where I work we have a DB2 DB and a Postgres DB running.
Neither of them have to be taken down during maintenance.

Neither databases crash.

DB2 is way faster than Postgres. But as I stated earlier hardware is
getting faster in an enormous rate, making the speed less important
(note the less here, it will still be important).

The size of the database it not a problem with postgres, terrabyte
database... ok..
What's a big problem with postgres (and actually one of the main reasons
why we don't use it for our sensitive information) and that's that
postgres is extremely unrelyable in high TPS situations.
Scalability with OSS databases just plain sucks (if any).

But still I think OSS databases are to be reconed with.

It's the same as the early 90s, Linux, what a cute little project, but
it surely will never be of any importance. Now, just take a look a the
linux population among Internet web servers.

-R-
Nov 12 '05 #39

P: n/a
There is a great blog entry on why you shouldn't pay attention to
industry analysts at http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/eai/leadership

Nov 12 '05 #40

P: n/a


DA Morgan <da******@psoug.org> wrote:

Oh, the data is valuable alright and in use by Blue Chip companies
across the world, many of whom would be clients of a certain large
aerospace manufacturing company situated in Washington State that you
can't talk about - United Airlines is an example of such client. It could well be that the UA dba's are tearing their hair out, but
they're probably not the ones who made the purchasing decision about
the s/ware, and rocking the boat mightn't do their careers any good.

No but on purely theoretical grounds, because I know we are NOT talking
about United Airlines, they MUST be compliant with Sarbanes-Oxley.
Compliance is not optional ... it is mandatory.

Maybe they are compliant? Why does using a db as a bitbucket make you
uncompliant? (DRI is enforced in the creation scripts). Maybe you
could point me to a site that gives an overview of Sarbanes-Oxley for
the non-specialist accountant (obviously I can Google, but you might
have a good one handy?).
I know for a fact that this company has UA as a client, but there may
be wheels within wheels - web interfaces that connect to systems
(which may be outside the US or may not be) and which take data from
them (possibly old mainframe TPF type systems) which are possibly
compliant? I'm not exactly sure where the buck stops and I would
imagine that there would be lots of fingerpointing if anyone was
looking at any time in the slammer. Suits and countersuits... maybe I
should have done law?

So refer to the simulated conversation above. Management can not and
will not break federal law to save a few dollars. It just isn't going
to happen. Not after Enron. Not after WorldCom. Not after ....

As I said, I'm not privy to the higher echelons of the arrangements
these companies have made with each other - if you're interested I
could give you a brief outline offline...
Paul...

--

plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__

XP Pro, SP 2,

Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.)
Interbase 6.0.2.0;

When asking database related questions, please give other posters
some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.
The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!").
Thanks.

Furthermore, As a courtesy to those who spend
time analysing and attempting to help, please
do not top post.
Nov 12 '05 #41

P: n/a
Now Ingres is ready to kick Oracle's butt, or at least that's what
they claim.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823158,00.asp

Nov 12 '05 #42

P: n/a
Paul wrote:
Maybe they are compliant? Why does using a db as a bitbucket make you
uncompliant? (DRI is enforced in the creation scripts). Maybe you
could point me to a site that gives an overview of Sarbanes-Oxley for
the non-specialist accountant (obviously I can Google, but you might
have a good one handy?).


I assume they are. The point is auditability. The ability to identify
everyone that has touched the data, how they touched it, why they
touched it, and the source of the transation. And done in a way that
can not be circumvented. And that is the key. Any system that allows a
DBA to log in and insert, update, or delete and not be logged is a
potential legal issue.
So refer to the simulated conversation above. Management can not and
will not break federal law to save a few dollars. It just isn't going
to happen. Not after Enron. Not after WorldCom. Not after ....


As I said, I'm not privy to the higher echelons of the arrangements
these companies have made with each other - if you're interested I
could give you a brief outline offline...

Paul...


Not necessary but I never lack for interest if you are so inclined.

Regards,
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #43

P: n/a


Redhat say upgrade the firmware..I assume it fixes something...SO DO
IT..

If problem persists...get Dell to quote required OS patches and apply
them.

If Dell just quote a specific OS issue then quote that back to Redhat.

If it's a known issue then Dell and/or Redhat should be able to quote
required
patches.

If it is still a problem then Redhat should be able to put in more
logging
to give problem details. Dell should be able to help after all how do
firmware
patches get created?

Nov 12 '05 #44

P: n/a
da***@smooth1.co.uk wrote:

Redhat say upgrade the firmware..I assume it fixes something...SO DO
IT..

If problem persists...get Dell to quote required OS patches and apply
them.

If Dell just quote a specific OS issue then quote that back to Redhat.

If it's a known issue then Dell and/or Redhat should be able to quote
required
patches.

If it is still a problem then Redhat should be able to put in more
logging
to give problem details. Dell should be able to help after all how do
firmware
patches get created?


And then seriously consider tossing them both out the door and
purchasing hardware and operating system from the same company.
And I don't need to repeat the name of my current recommendation:
Do I. ;-)
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #45

P: n/a
Leythos wrote:
... they run 24x7x365 and do so for years.


At least seven years at a time if your claim is correct...

:-)

It probably means you're still on Windows 98, too; remarkable!

--
Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h>
Email: jl******@earthlink.net, jl******@us.ibm.com
Guardian of DBD::Informix v2005.01 -- http://dbi.perl.org/
Nov 12 '05 #46

P: n/a
<da***@smooth1.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...


Redhat say upgrade the firmware..I assume it fixes something...SO DO
IT..

If problem persists...get Dell to quote required OS patches and apply
them.

If Dell just quote a specific OS issue then quote that back to Redhat.

If it's a known issue then Dell and/or Redhat should be able to quote
required
patches.

If it is still a problem then Redhat should be able to put in more
logging
to give problem details. Dell should be able to help after all how do
firmware
patches get created?


I don't know if this irony, David. I suspect not. But either way, I think
illustrates well the actual point I was trying to make: that there remains a
widespread perceptiona mongst serious corporations that you're asking for
Support Hell if you buy an OS not supplied by he hardware manufacturer.
Nov 12 '05 #47

P: n/a

DA Morgan wrote:
There is another important reason too: Instrumentation. If they are
slow diagnosing why is a question of making guesses. That may be a
reasonable approach when supporting a small non-commercial web site.
It is a non-starter when talking terabytes and a requirement for 7x24.


A rather depressing thought is that the reason many of these open
source platforms are gaining popularity are a general and widespread
lack of understanding of the essentials of performance engineering.
That eyeballing utilization and ratios are enough.

Part of my job is to firefight important projects that use my
employer's technology (BEA). I find the "task forces" are formed with
the various vendors and don't actually wind up finding the problem --
they just look under their own rock, and give the thumbs up, and point
fingers to the other guy. It's hard to get a disciplined focus on the
end-to-end service and wait times.

Usually when I come in, I find the problem is "good J2EE 101" or "good
Oracle 101"; stuff that Tom Kyte has pointed out for years: Java
developers not using bind variables, developers building extremely
chatty systems (18 small round trips instead of 1 larger one), lack of
statement caches to avoid parsing, not collecting statistics regularly
and properly, etc. And management, desperate to show some kind of
action to their executives, just decide to add hardware. I can't blame
them, though they usually are aghast when I'm brought in and suggest
that this may even make the situation worse.

I look at the MySQL's and JBoss' of the world, and I see a focus on a
particular audience of developers whose itches are being scratched: the
shiny, stylish, and inexpensive environment that requires "just enough"
in-depth knowledge to keep the developer around to run the thing. But
when problems creep up outside their domain, all hell breaks loose.

Cheers
Stu

Nov 12 '05 #48

P: n/a
Neil Truby wrote:
I don't know if this irony, David. I suspect not. But either way, I think
illustrates well the actual point I was trying to make: that there remains a
widespread perceptiona mongst serious corporations that you're asking for
Support Hell if you buy an OS not supplied by he hardware manufacturer.


Likely based on real-world experience.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #49

P: n/a
Stu Charlton wrote:
DA Morgan wrote:

There is another important reason too: Instrumentation. If they are
slow diagnosing why is a question of making guesses. That may be a
reasonable approach when supporting a small non-commercial web site.
It is a non-starter when talking terabytes and a requirement for 7x24.

A rather depressing thought is that the reason many of these open
source platforms are gaining popularity are a general and widespread
lack of understanding of the essentials of performance engineering.
That eyeballing utilization and ratios are enough.

Part of my job is to firefight important projects that use my
employer's technology (BEA). I find the "task forces" are formed with
the various vendors and don't actually wind up finding the problem --
they just look under their own rock, and give the thumbs up, and point
fingers to the other guy. It's hard to get a disciplined focus on the
end-to-end service and wait times.

Usually when I come in, I find the problem is "good J2EE 101" or "good
Oracle 101"; stuff that Tom Kyte has pointed out for years: Java
developers not using bind variables, developers building extremely
chatty systems (18 small round trips instead of 1 larger one), lack of
statement caches to avoid parsing, not collecting statistics regularly
and properly, etc. And management, desperate to show some kind of
action to their executives, just decide to add hardware. I can't blame
them, though they usually are aghast when I'm brought in and suggest
that this may even make the situation worse.

I look at the MySQL's and JBoss' of the world, and I see a focus on a
particular audience of developers whose itches are being scratched: the
shiny, stylish, and inexpensive environment that requires "just enough"
in-depth knowledge to keep the developer around to run the thing. But
when problems creep up outside their domain, all hell breaks loose.

Cheers
Stu


Precisely duplicates my experiences.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
da******@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Nov 12 '05 #50

68 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.