Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

Posted in 2003

Neil Truby — Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:31:04 +0100 — source: Usenet: comp.databases.informix

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:91P8b.820$TJ.101480@news.uswest.net... > You seem to be judging the databases based on market share. Maybe in the UK > DB2 is not popular, but in the US it is doing very well against Oracle. MS > SQL Server is also doing well. Oracle is loosing market share, which is not > surprising since the pretty much owned the market at one time. To be clear, you're talking about DB2 UDB, right? In the UK, for sure "DB2" is very popular, because of all those mainframe installations (and because every AS400 has DB2 USB installed on it whether used or not). But in the UNIX/Linux/NT market DB2 UDB is a marginal player by comparison with Oracle and particularly - as you say - the fast-growing SQL Server.

↪ replying to Neil Truby

Mark A — Sun, 14 Sep 2003 07:56:32 -0600 — source: Usenet: comp.databases.informix

> > You seem to be judging the databases based on market share. Maybe in the > UK > > DB2 is not popular, but in the US it is doing very well against Oracle. MS > > SQL Server is also doing well. Oracle is loosing market share, which is > not > > surprising since the pretty much owned the market at one time. > > To be clear, you're talking about DB2 UDB, right? > In the UK, for sure "DB2" is very popular, because of all those mainframe > installations (and because every AS400 has DB2 USB installed on it whether > used or not). But in the UNIX/Linux/NT market DB2 UDB is a marginal player > by comparison with Oracle and particularly - as you say - the fast-growing > SQL Server. > Like I said, DB2 for Windows, Linux, and Unix is doing very well in the US. I am talking about new installations. Oracle still has a strong lead in terms of installed base on those platforms.