Re: database market share 2003
> "SQL" means MS SQL Server Something I'm sure MS are more than happy with. > UDB means DB2 UDB for Linux Unix and Windows. This I just don't buy. You say this, but the IBM web site refers to DB2 Universal Database for .... when referring to all three code bases. And you have documents entitled "DB2 UDB Family On Common Ground". And these documents say things like "In February of 1999, IBM' announced DB2' Universal Database for iSeries (DB2 UDB for iSeries), ..." Searching for all the following keywords on the IBM website returns vast numbers of hits DB2 UDB iSeries - 8,691 hits DB2 UDB OS/390 - 8,095 hits Note that the total nbr of hits for DB2 UDB is only 56,445 This is not accidental or even the result of a legacy. I firmly believe that somebody somewhere at IBM is more than happy that some people read UDB and mistakenly believe that it's all the same product. Otherwise all this stuff would have been corrected by now, right ?
Mark Townsend wrote: > >> "SQL" means MS SQL Server > > > Something I'm sure MS are more than happy with. > >> UDB means DB2 UDB for Linux Unix and Windows. > > > This I just don't buy. You say this, but the IBM web site refers to > DB2 Universal Database for .... when referring to all three code bases. > > And you have documents entitled "DB2 UDB Family On Common Ground". > > And these documents say things like "In February of 1999, IBM' announced > DB2' Universal Database for iSeries (DB2 UDB for iSeries), ..." > > Searching for all the following keywords on the IBM website returns vast > numbers of hits > DB2 UDB iSeries - 8,691 hits > DB2 UDB OS/390 - 8,095 hits > Note that the total nbr of hits for DB2 UDB is only 56,445 > > > This is not accidental or even the result of a legacy. I firmly believe > that somebody somewhere at IBM is more than happy that some people read > UDB and mistakenly believe that it's all the same product. > > Otherwise all this stuff would have been corrected by now, right ? > Mark, I can't climb into other peoples minds,and I won't even try that with executives. But if DB2 UDB is best known on the Linux, Windows and Unix platform and has that mindshare - And Oracle is best known for databases, don't you think IBM executives are as happy as Oracle to implicitly leverage brand-image and carry it over? As you point out yourself, IBM's message there is inconsistent. It's not IMHO ignoring the fact that they are different bases _systematically_ which is what is alleged. I've never encountered having an publication of mine being polished to exclude the platform identifier. I have seen teh reverse a lot. 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. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab