Re: database market share 2003

Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 5/06/2004 9:09 AM: > Precisely! The case is made that different code bases is actually > better! You've got to have different exploitative code on each platform. Is it better really? I'd hate to have to write ANYTHING for a "same code base" product that needs this: https://aurora.vcu.edu/db2help/db2c0/frame3.htm#db2c024 for people to be able to use it in each platform. The same crap for Oracle would be resumed in one (1) sentence: Oracle works EXATLY and PRECISELY the same REGARDLESS of what platform you run it on. Now, you can take your "optimized-single-code-base-that-is-not- quite-the-same-but-we'd-really-really-like-everyone-to-believe- it-is" and quite frankly, shove it... ;) -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam> schreef in bericht news:40c3017c$0$1586$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 5/06/2004 9:09 AM: > > > Precisely! The case is made that different code bases is actually > > better! You've got to have different exploitative code on each platform. > > Is it better really? I'd hate to have to write ANYTHING for a "same > code base" product that needs this: > https://aurora.vcu.edu/db2help/db2c0/frame3.htm#db2c024 > for people to be able to use it in each platform. > > The same crap for Oracle would be resumed in one (1) sentence: > Oracle works EXATLY and PRECISELY the same REGARDLESS of what > platform you run it on. > Have you ever used Oracle on OS/390? I wouldn't say it works EXACTLY and PRECISELY the same there. Oracle on OS/390 comes with quite a few manuals specific for that environment, which wouldn't be necessary for a product that doesn't care on which platform it is executed.

More respectful and thoughtful comments from an Oracle bigot. You continue to demonstrate your biases and your pure opinionated non-logic that is frankly extremely short-sighted and dismisses anything but your own twisted reasoning. It has already been stated that the DB2 codebase is exactly the same across the Intel/AMD/UNIX platforms ... the ones that DB2 competes against Oracle on. How you can just completely dismiss the benefits of the minor differences in code base (mostly not at an application level) is beyond me, and shows how you think. There are great similaries across all these code bases. If you'd hate to have to write any applications that might (stress MIGHT) have to differ somewhat across the Intel/AMD/UNIX vs. iseries vs. 390/z platforms, so be it. Evidently, thousands of ISVs differ with you. It's a matter of cost vs. benefit, and that is a business decision ... something you either apparently don't want to consider ... or that hasn't occurred to you. The point is this. Why are you worried about having to do a bit more work if it results in a better product, sells licenses for your application, and makes you more money? Does Toyota put the same engine in all their cars? Don't you think their development costs would be lower if they did? Does GE make only one size air conditioner and tell consumers to install it in their house no matter how small or big it is? Don't you think GE's costs would be lower if they could do this? Yes ... it IS better really. Larry Edelstein Noons wrote: > Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 5/06/2004 9:09 AM: > >> Precisely! The case is made that different code bases is actually >> better! You've got to have different exploitative code on each platform. > > > Is it better really? I'd hate to have to write ANYTHING for a "same > code base" product that needs this: > https://aurora.vcu.edu/db2help/db2c0/frame3.htm#db2c024 > for people to be able to use it in each platform. > > The same crap for Oracle would be resumed in one (1) sentence: > Oracle works EXATLY and PRECISELY the same REGARDLESS of what > platform you run it on. > > Now, you can take your "optimized-single-code-base-that-is-not- > quite-the-same-but-we'd-really-really-like-everyone-to-believe- > it-is" and quite frankly, shove it... > > ;) >

"Larry" <Larry@nospam.net> wrote in message news:VlKwc.11078$c76.6922147@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net... > It has already been stated that the DB2 codebase is exactly the same > across the Intel/AMD/UNIX platforms ... the ones that DB2 competes > against Oracle on. How you can just completely dismiss the benefits of > the minor differences in code base (mostly not at an application level) > is beyond me, and shows how you think. There are great similaries across > all these code bases. Minor quibble - last time I looked 'great similarities' and 'exactly the same' had 2 different meanings. <snip> > The point is this. Why are you worried about having to do a bit more > work if it results in a better product, sells licenses for your > application, and makes you more money? Does Toyota put the same engine > in all their cars? Don't you think their development costs would be > lower if they did? Does GE make only one size air conditioner and tell > consumers to install it in their house no matter how small or big it is? > Don't you think GE's costs would be lower if they could do this? > > Yes ... it IS better really. In which way? - your initial well its all pretty much the same really way, or your second its all designed for the use to which its put way? And of course the billion dollar question - so why not move all the informix guys to DB2 - after all it's better right. -- Niall Litchfield Oracle DBA http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com

"Jeroen van den Broek" <Jeroen@NO_SPAMbaasbovenbaas.demon.nl> wrote in message news:<10c6aivlc1efqfa@corp.supernews.com>... > Have you ever used Oracle on OS/390? Matter of fact, I have. When that crap was called MVS/XA. > I wouldn't say it works EXACTLY and PRECISELY the same there. I would say you don't have a clue what you're talking about. > Oracle on OS/390 comes with quite a few manuals specific for that > environment, which wouldn't be necessary for a product that doesn't care on > which platform it is executed. And coming with manuals that explain that deranged platform is a fault of Oracle in not being the same as everywhere else? Here is a clue: stop measuring your knowledge of a product by the weight of manuals. It helps too if you read them...

> > Oracle on OS/390 comes with quite a few manuals specific for that > > environment, which wouldn't be necessary for a product that doesn't care on > > which platform it is executed. > > And coming with manuals that explain that deranged platform is > a fault of Oracle in not being the same as everywhere else? > MVS or zOS are not deranged platforms. But an application that is written is C (like Oracle) is not going to perform well on that platform.

Larry <Larry@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<VlKwc.11078$c76.6922147@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>... > You continue to demonstrate your biases and your pure opinionated > non-logic that is frankly extremely short-sighted and dismisses anything > but your own twisted reasoning. Get lost. You don't have the FOGGIEST what my motivations are, what "biases" I have or ANYTHING about me, for that matter. > It has already been stated that the DB2 codebase is exactly the same > across the Intel/AMD/UNIX platforms ... 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... > How you can just completely dismiss the benefits of > the minor differences in code base (mostly not at an application level) > is beyond me, and shows how you think. There are great similaries across > all these code bases. So, is it "exactly the same" or "greatly similar"? Can't you idiots for once start to make sense in all that jazz about the "same product", "same code base" and all that UTTER crap? > Intel/AMD/UNIX vs. iseries vs. 390/z platforms, so be it. Evidently, > thousands of ISVs differ with you. It's a matter of cost vs. benefit, They disagree so much with me that there isn't A SINGLE ONE writing code for AS400 UDB as well as Unix UDB. That's how much they "disagree with me"... > application, and makes you more money? Does Toyota put the same engine > in all their cars? Who cares? Toyota is not stupid enough to claim they all aren't internal combustion engines. or that they all have the same number of cilinders. Not something one can say about the "single code base" product.

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 1:32 PM: > MVS or zOS are not deranged platforms. But an application that is written is > C (like Oracle) is not going to perform well on that platform. Oh bugger: there goes the "portability" and "single code base" of UDB/DB2 down the drain.... -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

> > MVS or zOS are not deranged platforms. But an application that is written is > > C (like Oracle) is not going to perform well on that platform. > > Oh bugger: there goes the "portability" and "single code > base" of UDB/DB2 down the drain.... > > -- > Cheers > Nuno Souto As previously stated: DB2 has the same code base for UNIX, Linux, and Windows. There is a separate code base for OS/390, and a another one for AS/400. The point that was made is that Oracle doesn't even have a product for AS/400, and the Oracle product on OS/390 does not seriously compete with DB2 on that platform. So on the platforms that Oracle and DB2 compete (UNIX, Linux, and Windows, DB2 does have one code base.

Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 8:18 PM: > on that platform. So on the platforms that Oracle and DB2 compete (UNIX, > Linux, and Windows, DB2 does have one code base. and funnily enough, Oracle is streets ahead in PRECISELY those platforms with Microsoft catching up faster than anyone else. UDB? How do you spell that? Some 35% INDEED... -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

Niall Litchfield wrote: > In which way? - your initial well its all pretty much the same really way, > or your second its all designed for the use to which its put way? And of > course the billion dollar question - so why not move all the informix guys > to DB2 - after all it's better right. DB2 for z/OS and DB2 for AS/400 is better than IDS for z/OS and IDS for AS/400 by virtue of IDS not being supported there. That was Larry's point. Different codepase allow you to exploit the platforms better. BTW, Oracle is NOT the same code across their supported platforms. There is a fair bit of deep integration which is one of the reasons why Oracle never ships on the same date for all platforms. IBM has driven deep integration for iSeries to an extreme and for z/OS so far that the code-_bases_ are not the same with DB2 Unix Windows and Linux. There are some problems you catch along the way, such as sticking to agreed upon semantics (which is a problem folks like I have to deal with) , but it's well worth it, given that these two platforms are so succcessful as to warrant this yearly flame war and many just want them to _go away_ :-) Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

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 -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Noons wrote: > and funnily enough, Oracle is streets ahead in PRECISELY those platforms > with Microsoft catching up faster than anyone else. > UDB? How do you spell that? Some 35% INDEED... Correct. That's how the game goes when one enters the market late. But I see this as the glass being (already) half full. When I joined IBM shortly after DB2 V5 shipped I was not certain I made a good move given an abysmal marketshare at the time. Now, tracking the share over 3 releases I think I'm in the right spot. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 10:55 PM: > Correct. That's how the game goes when one enters the market late. Don't know... After all, DB2 commercially PRE-DATES Oracle, funny enough! > When I joined IBM shortly after DB2 V5 shipped I was not certain I made > a good move given an abysmal marketshare at the time. > Now, tracking the share over 3 releases I think I'm in the right spot. DB2 or UDB? You see, that is where these things have to be VERY precisely stated, because of this permanent confusion about what is what. And is that across the board or just on IBM's own Unix boxes? -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 10:42 PM: > > 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. I think it was one of Blair's claims for DB2 that started it. Can't find the original post, it's not in google anymore although many of my replies are. Somewhere around this time of the year, 2001. It's the marketing "season" anyways. -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

I have NEVER said that DB2 was the same code base on zOS (MVS) as it is on Linux/UNIX/Windows. I have NEVER said that DB2 is the same code base on zOS, VM and AS/400. I am willing to send you all newsgroup postings I made in 2001 if you feel a need to verify (as long as you promise to use them for nothing else). Noons wrote: > Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 10:42 PM: > >> >> 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. > > > I think it was one of Blair's claims for DB2 that started it. > Can't find the original post, it's not in google anymore > although many of my replies are. Somewhere around this time > of the year, 2001. It's the marketing "season" anyways. > >

Noons wrote: > Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 10:42 PM: > >> >> 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. > > > I think it was one of Blair's claims for DB2 that started it. > Can't find the original post, it's not in google anymore > although many of my replies are. Somewhere around this time > of the year, 2001. It's the marketing "season" anyways. > > http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3B0840EB.553CAFF2%40us.ibm.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DBlair%2Bcodebase%2B390%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D3B0840EB.553CAFF2%2540us.ibm.com%26rnum%3D1 I quote from Blair's post, and yours (appended): DB2 is the same code base on all versions of Windows (95 through 2000), AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, NUMA-Q and OS/2. There are three other DB2 code bases (390, AS/400 and VM/VSE). 4 code bases is not "zillions". Each RDBMS vendor has an additional code base kicking around (Oracle has RDB, Sybase has SQL Anywhere, and Microsoft has Access and Foxpro) - at least IBM has aligned DML across the platforms. Nuno Souto wrote: > On Sat, 19 May 2001 09:36:46 -0400, Blair Kenneth Adamache > <adamache@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > > >merging object-relational features into a parallel relational database) mesh > >nicely with DB2's approach. It is our expectation that Informix releases under > > Yeah, they might eventually allow IBM to deliver one version of DB2, > instead of the zillion versions out there, one for each platform... > > <d&r> > > Cheers > Nuno Souto > nsouto@bigpond.net.au.nospam > http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html ---------------- So could we now put this myth about IBMers pretending there is only one codebase to bed? Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Noons wrote: > Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 7/06/2004 10:55 PM: > >> Correct. That's how the game goes when one enters the market late. > > > Don't know... After all, DB2 commercially PRE-DATES Oracle, funny > enough! Yes, just not on Unix and Windows. Brand new codebase. Remember?! >> When I joined IBM shortly after DB2 V5 shipped I was not certain I >> made a good move given an abysmal marketshare at the time. >> Now, tracking the share over 3 releases I think I'm in the right spot. > > > DB2 or UDB? You see, that is where these things have to be > VERY precisely stated, because of this permanent confusion about > what is what. And is that across the board or just on IBM's own > Unix boxes? UDB is not a specifier for the codebase either. When refere to DB2 I uusally refer to DB2 UDB for Linux,Unix and Windows. That's the codebase I work on and it seems the majority of the posters in comp.databases.ibm-db2 use this platforms. (An interesting statistical phenomenon in itself, actually) So I was refering to DB2 UDB V5 for Unix, Windows (and Linux? Don't recall) having had a small marketshare at that point. It was only the second release I think. The first release was only on OS/2 AFAIK and not even yet owned by Toronto. DB2 UDB V5 merged DB2 CS with DB2 PE (shared nothing paralelism). With DB2 PE coming AFTER DB2 for OS/390 already did shared-disk paralelism - to clean up with yet another myth. Unfortunetely like with many products names sometimes go their own ways. MS folks refer to their product as "SQL" (which makes me reach for teh switchblade) many DB2 folks refer to DB2 for Unix, Windows and Linux as "UDB" because it was the first labeled UDB (the IBM link itself still reflects that heritage). IMHO IBM is rather bad about naming things..... But then again I'm neither marketing nor a smart cookie. So I just shut up :-) -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau <srielau@ca.eye-be-em.com> wrote in message news:<ca28br$jr3$1@hanover.torolab.ibm.com>... <snip> > I quote from Blair's post, and yours (appended): > > DB2 is the same code base on all versions of Windows (95 through 2000), AIX, > Solaris, HP-UX, NUMA-Q and OS/2. There are three other DB2 code bases > (390, AS/400 > and VM/VSE). 4 code bases is not "zillions". Each RDBMS vendor has an > additional > code base kicking around (Oracle has RDB, Sybase has SQL Anywhere, and > Microsoft has > Access and Foxpro) - at least IBM has aligned DML across the platforms. nah. all the UDB books i've seen say, in effect, "don't try this on the mainframe." i've been bitten more than once. my two pets: you can't set integrity (without getting a COBOL-er to run a Job), and you can't reset an identity. robert <snip>

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> schreef in bericht news:73e20c6c.0406061927.438e0ab@posting.google.com... > "Jeroen van den Broek" <Jeroen@NO_SPAMbaasbovenbaas.demon.nl> wrote in message news:<10c6aivlc1efqfa@corp.supernews.com>... > > > Have you ever used Oracle on OS/390? > > Matter of fact, I have. When that crap was called MVS/XA. > Assuming this has been >10 years back, as MVS/XA has been withdrawn end 1992, do you think nothing has changed since, both for the OS as for Oracle? > > I wouldn't say it works EXACTLY and PRECISELY the same there. > > I would say you don't have a clue what you're talking about. > Why are you getting personal? Did I attack you? No. Did I attack your favorite DBMS? No. As a matter of fact, I work both with DB2 and Oracle (on OS/390) and although I am far more familiar with DB2, I am perfectly happy with Oracle as well. > > Oracle on OS/390 comes with quite a few manuals specific for that > > environment, which wouldn't be necessary for a product that doesn't care on > > which platform it is executed. > > And coming with manuals that explain that deranged platform is > a fault of Oracle in not being the same as everywhere else? > The manuals don't explain the OS (lots of IBM-manuals for that), but the differences in architecture, administrative procedures, parameters, messages etc between the OS/390 version of Oracle and the 'standard' Oracle environment. > Here is a clue: stop measuring your knowledge of a product > by the weight of manuals. It helps too if you read them... Again, getting personal doesn't make a good argument. I am perfectly aware that I am no match for you w.r.t. knowledge about Oracle in general, but this doesn't give you the right to act like a VIP and try to shut me up by being rude. Furthermore, I think I am safe in assuming I have read more of the current OS/390-specific Oracle-documentation then yourself. Maybe you care to read this pdf-file: http://shareweb.share.org/proceedings/sh96/data/S0961.PDF It contains an 'Introduction to Oracle on OS/390 with OSDI' written by Ken Panza from Oracle. One final question: if you think Unix is the only viable environment not only for Oracle, but for all critical business software, why bother about 'Oracle is Oracle is Oracle' or 'DB2 isn't UDB isn't DB/400'? Better try to convince users of those 'crap'-OS's to step into the wonderfull world of Unix, where Oracle is still in the lead...

Serge Rielau wrote: > Noons wrote: > > So I was refering to DB2 UDB V5 for Unix, Windows (and Linux? Don't > recall) having had a small marketshare at that point. It was only the In v5.0, DB2 that you're referring to was DB2 for UWO, I think. I can't recall the order - but it's Unix, Windows, and OS/2. IBM released a beta of DB2 for Linux with DB2 v5.2, but it never GA'd, and thus wasn't publically available. Rather, it wasn't supported, although the beta was a public beta. DB2 for Linux GA'd with the rest of DB2 UDB on UWO with DB2 v6.1. The platform identifier didn't seem to change until OS/2 was dropped with v8, from UWO to LUW - DB2 for Linux, Unix, and Windows. This corrects an oversight from previous releases that treated Linux as if it could be contained under the Unix name, which, of course, it can't.