Re: database market share 2003

"rkusenet" <rkusenet@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<2hmh03Fdir3uU1@uni-berlin.de>... > http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_database_marketshare_1.html > > Interesting to see that database sales for windows is more than > Unix. what i've not seen is the other side of this coin: that (perhaps) IBM's share is skewed (looks larger than it really is) by the fact that it pretty much owns the mainframe. a relative handful of very expensive installs. in other words, i question how relevant DB2 is to the future of relational databases. IBM needs to demonstrate that it is relevant outside of conversions (i use the term very, very loosely) of behemouth COBOL/VSAM systems. at my work, they just defined tables from the copybooks. i gather this is quite common. robert

"robert" <gnuoytr@rcn.com> wrote in message news:da3c2186.0405291715.5e4125bd@posting.google.com... > what i've not seen is the other side of this coin: that (perhaps) > IBM's share is skewed (looks larger than it really is) by the > fact that it pretty much owns the mainframe. a relative handful > of very expensive installs. in other words, i question how relevant > DB2 is to the future of relational databases. IBM needs to > demonstrate that it is relevant outside of conversions (i use > the term very, very loosely) of behemouth COBOL/VSAM systems. at > my work, they just defined tables from the copybooks. i > gather this is quite common. > > robert Since DB2 mainframe has been around since the mid-1980's, that is ridiculous. The overwhelming majority or DB2 OS/390 applications were designed on DB2 from scratch. Your company may be an exception, and somewhat backward. After all, they employ you, so it must be a really screwed up company.

Mark A wrote: > "robert" <gnuoytr@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:da3c2186.0405291715.5e4125bd@posting.google.com... > >>what i've not seen is the other side of this coin: that (perhaps) >>IBM's share is skewed (looks larger than it really is) by the >>fact that it pretty much owns the mainframe. a relative handful >>of very expensive installs. in other words, i question how relevant >>DB2 is to the future of relational databases. IBM needs to >>demonstrate that it is relevant outside of conversions (i use >>the term very, very loosely) of behemouth COBOL/VSAM systems. at >>my work, they just defined tables from the copybooks. i >>gather this is quite common. >> >>robert > > > Since DB2 mainframe has been around since the mid-1980's, that is > ridiculous. The overwhelming majority or DB2 OS/390 applications were > designed on DB2 from scratch. Your company may be an exception, and somewhat > backward. After all, they employ you, so it must be a really screwed up > company. But for how much longer ... I wonder? I am watching the huge inroads being made by clustered Linux taking out Sun's and H/P's more expensive offerings. I built an 8 CPU cluster a few weeks back with less than $11,000 US in hardware. How long before it becomes easy to build OS/390 equivalent machines with a rack of 2 CPU x 4GB Intel boxes running RedHat AS? I suspect far sooner than you want to imagine. And when the big iron goes ... do you think DB2 will survive? Informix, in my opinion, has a better chance of surviving. -- 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)

Daniel, This reminds me of the 80s when client/server and distributed computing first came in to vogue. The big headline was that the mainframe was a dinosaur and would soon be replaced by distributed systems. I'm still waiting. And I think the same thing holds for Linux. It is certainly appropriate for certain applications. But its got a ways to go before it matures. And even then, I somehow don't think that a Linux system built with the hw that you quote will ever be running you bank accounts, your credit cards, and making reservations for you on airlines. Most, if not all, of these type of applications require the RAS of the mainframe ... and I don't see a day real soon when they won't. Larry Edelstein Daniel Morgan wrote: > Mark A wrote: > >> "robert" <gnuoytr@rcn.com> wrote in message >> news:da3c2186.0405291715.5e4125bd@posting.google.com... >> >>> what i've not seen is the other side of this coin: that (perhaps) >>> IBM's share is skewed (looks larger than it really is) by the >>> fact that it pretty much owns the mainframe. a relative handful >>> of very expensive installs. in other words, i question how relevant >>> DB2 is to the future of relational databases. IBM needs to >>> demonstrate that it is relevant outside of conversions (i use >>> the term very, very loosely) of behemouth COBOL/VSAM systems. at >>> my work, they just defined tables from the copybooks. i >>> gather this is quite common. >>> >>> robert >> >> >> >> Since DB2 mainframe has been around since the mid-1980's, that is >> ridiculous. The overwhelming majority or DB2 OS/390 applications were >> designed on DB2 from scratch. Your company may be an exception, and >> somewhat >> backward. After all, they employ you, so it must be a really screwed up >> company. > > > But for how much longer ... I wonder? > > I am watching the huge inroads being made by clustered Linux taking out > Sun's and H/P's more expensive offerings. I built an 8 CPU cluster a few > weeks back with less than $11,000 US in hardware. > > How long before it becomes easy to build OS/390 equivalent machines > with a rack of 2 CPU x 4GB Intel boxes running RedHat AS? > > I suspect far sooner than you want to imagine. > > And when the big iron goes ... do you think DB2 will survive? Informix, > in my opinion, has a better chance of surviving. >

And why wouldn't Oracle's results be skewed by it's heritage on UNIX, and Microsoft's be skewed by its heritage on Windows? What does that prove? As long as you are growing on the relevant platforms (which IBM is), and as long as you maintain a significant overall market share ... that proves that you are going to be around as a company and more importantly, as a database company for the foreseeable future. This is what's most important about market share. Otherwise, I don't understand your point. It's like saying that because Nabisco has a higher overall market share in the cookie market ... and that this is skewed by them having the leading market share in Oreo sandwich cookies, you won't buy Keebler cookies. Larry Edelstein robert wrote: > "rkusenet" <rkusenet@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<2hmh03Fdir3uU1@uni-berlin.de>... > >>http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_database_marketshare_1.html >> >>Interesting to see that database sales for windows is more than >>Unix. > > > what i've not seen is the other side of this coin: that (perhaps) > IBM's share is skewed (looks larger than it really is) by the > fact that it pretty much owns the mainframe. a relative handful > of very expensive installs. in other words, i question how relevant > DB2 is to the future of relational databases. IBM needs to > demonstrate that it is relevant outside of conversions (i use > the term very, very loosely) of behemouth COBOL/VSAM systems. at > my work, they just defined tables from the copybooks. i > gather this is quite common. > > robert

Daniel Morgan wrote: > Mark A wrote: > >> "robert" <gnuoytr@rcn.com> wrote in message >> news:da3c2186.0405291715.5e4125bd@posting.google.com... >> >>> what i've not seen is the other side of this coin: that (perhaps) >>> IBM's share is skewed (looks larger than it really is) by the >>> fact that it pretty much owns the mainframe. a relative handful >>> of very expensive installs. in other words, i question how relevant >>> DB2 is to the future of relational databases. IBM needs to >>> demonstrate that it is relevant outside of conversions (i use >>> the term very, very loosely) of behemouth COBOL/VSAM systems. at >>> my work, they just defined tables from the copybooks. i >>> gather this is quite common. >>> >>> robert >> >> >> >> Since DB2 mainframe has been around since the mid-1980's, that is >> ridiculous. The overwhelming majority or DB2 OS/390 applications were >> designed on DB2 from scratch. Your company may be an exception, and >> somewhat >> backward. After all, they employ you, so it must be a really screwed up >> company. > > > But for how much longer ... I wonder? > > I am watching the huge inroads being made by clustered Linux taking out > Sun's and H/P's more expensive offerings. I built an 8 CPU cluster a few > weeks back with less than $11,000 US in hardware. > > How long before it becomes easy to build OS/390 equivalent machines > with a rack of 2 CPU x 4GB Intel boxes running RedHat AS? > > I suspect far sooner than you want to imagine. > > And when the big iron goes ... do you think DB2 will survive? Informix, > in my opinion, has a better chance of surviving. > Well, I ran Informix on my Red Hat Linux 5.0 box for a while. It was a bit pathetic in that it did not have an API for C++: only for C. So I ended up writing a large bunch of C functions to interface to the Informix server. It worked, but sloppy. Then I upgraded to Red Hat Linux 6.0 and Informix never worked again. I e-mailed Informix about it and they said they did not know if it would work with 6.0 or not. I said I would be glad to test it for them, but that the CD-ROM I had would not read and could they send me another one. They never answered any e-mails after that. Which is why I upgraded to IBM DB2 UDB V6.1 which worked just fine. Since I am cheap, I kept V6.1 through upgrades to RHL 6.2 and 6.3. Now DB2 V6.1 did not really like RHL 7.3. It worked because there were some "compatability libraries" that could be used, but it meant I had to change all the makefiles to use those libraries, including getting it to use the compatibility version of ldd.so. Anyhow, when I built this machine I put Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 ES on it and installed IBM DB2 UDB V8.1 (upgraded to 8.1.5) and after a fight to get it installed (graphic installer does not work), it runs just fine on a dual hyperthreaded Intel XEON machine with 4GB (expandable to 16 GB if I found I needed it). Unless Informix has been greatly improved since the time RHL 6 came out, I do not see why anyone would wish to use it unless it is a lot cheaper than DB2. My needs are quite modest, since I am running it single-user for a single small (by dbms standards) database. But back when I started, postgreSQL and Oracle were the other alternatives, and postgreSQL did not run right (one version would not allow primary keys to be specified, and another was unable to have views), and Oracle's license agreement was so complicated that I refused to sign it. If a small user such as I can use it, I see no reason why a larger user could not. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 00:05:00 up 7 days, 7:20, 3 users, load average: 0.34, 0.28, 1.11

> > But for how much longer ... I wonder? > > > > I am watching the huge inroads being made by clustered Linux taking out > > Sun's and H/P's more expensive offerings. I built an 8 CPU cluster a few > > weeks back with less than $11,000 US in hardware. > > > > How long before it becomes easy to build OS/390 equivalent machines > > with a rack of 2 CPU x 4GB Intel boxes running RedHat AS? > > > > I suspect far sooner than you want to imagine. > > > > And when the big iron goes ... do you think DB2 will survive? Informix, > > in my opinion, has a better chance of surviving. > > Big iron is not as big, nor as expensive, as it once was. The actual hardware boundaries between mainframe and smaller computers are starting to disappear. The biggest cost of a mainframe is the software, and OS/390 and z/OS are still formidable products for certain applications in large enterprises.

In the real world Informix is already dead. "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1085885854.322603@yasure... suspect far sooner than you want to imagine. > > And when the big iron goes ... do you think DB2 will survive? Informix, > in my opinion, has a better chance of surviving. > > -- > Daniel Morgan