Re: database market share 2003
Serge Rielau wrote: > Noons wrote: > >> What was stated here many times by IBM people was that the >> code base was the same. Unqualified. Period. Whereas >> Oracle's wasn't. About as much sense as the rest of >> IBM's policies... > > Noons, can you point us to a google-link where this claim was made. I'm > following these newsgroups since about 6 years and I have never seen > such a claim. > > Cheers > Serge I just went to google and put in the following as my seach criterion: "DB2" AND "Single code base" You might want to do the same. The first link returned was: www-1.ibm.com/.... Top of the next page was: www.db2mag.com/ story/.... And Oracle ... at otn.oracle.com has White Papers detailing where that claim has been made. I think the claim has been made numerous times. And like so much marketing hyperbole is one that would best be apologized for. -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
And I suppose that Oracle has no cross to bear in this area? Larry Edelstein Daniel Morgan wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: > >> Noons wrote: >> >>> What was stated here many times by IBM people was that the >>> code base was the same. Unqualified. Period. Whereas >>> Oracle's wasn't. About as much sense as the rest of >>> IBM's policies... >> >> >> Noons, can you point us to a google-link where this claim was made. >> I'm following these newsgroups since about 6 years and I have never >> seen such a claim. >> >> Cheers >> Serge > > > I just went to google and put in the following as my seach criterion: > > "DB2" AND "Single code base" > > You might want to do the same. > > The first link returned was: > www-1.ibm.com/.... > Top of the next page was: > www.db2mag.com/ story/.... > And Oracle ... at otn.oracle.com has White Papers > detailing where that claim has been made. > > I think the claim has been made numerous times. And like so much > marketing hyperbole is one that would best be apologized for.
You mean this: http://www-1.ibm.com/industries/financialservices/doc/content/component/software/270311103.html "* Multiple operating systems, running on IBM and non-IBM hardware * A single code base to deliver a consistent set of functionality from small single CPU systems, to SMP, to clusters of either" That statement is correct. One can pick on the fact that the author didn't fully qualify "DB2 UDB" to "DB2 UDB for Linux Unix and Windows". We discussed this "legacy" problem of the UDB qualifier in earlier posts in this thread. UDB is unfortunately commonly used similarly to "SQL". "SQL" means MS SQL Server, UDB means DB2 UDB for Linux Unix and Windows. I recall a debate with Mark on an Oracle claim alleging that "inline procedural language" wasn't new and Oracle has it. After explaining to Mark over a beer what that feature means we settled for "marketing doesn't know better". Not every fine slip is malicious. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab