Re: database market share 2003

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<c9vuc.76$XJ.51654@news.uswest.net>... > > You can't call the fact that I, personally, have never run into > > DB2 on Windows nonsense. And you sure can't dig your way out of it > > by making reference to HP and Sun hardware unless you are somehow > > equating Solaris with a Microsoft product. > > > > So I'll try the statement again ... I ... that means mean personally, in > > 35 years in this industry ... seen DB2 on Windows in any organization > > that didn't have DB2 also on another IBM platform such as a mainframe > > or AS400. > > > > I can not be wrong about my personal experience. > > > > If you wish to prove that my personal experience is somehow skewed and > > not representative of the database market as a whole ... then here's > > how you can do it. > > > > Publish official numbers showing the number of DB2 licenses, on MS > > Windows, that are in companies that are not also using DB2 on mainframes > > or AS400. Simple. > > > > -- > > Daniel Morgan > > I didn't say anything about your "personal experience." I just said your > comments are nonsense. If you prefer: "your [limited] experience is > non-sense." > > > I have seen many DB2 installations on Windows. Since you live in Washington > state, where there is an extreme MS bias, most companies use MS SQL Server > on Windows. That combination is strong, but not quite as dominant in other > parts of the country. > > > > Excluding all companies that also run DB2 on OS/390 and AS/400 is quite > restrictive. I believe that are over 2000 companies who use DB2 on IBM > mainframes. The number of companies that run AS/400 (or I series) is in the > tens of thousands, and DB2 comes with the OS. > > > > So you seem to be excluding a huge percentage of the largest 5000 companies > in the US (most of whom have at least one IBM mainframe running DB2 or an > AS/400 which comes with DB2). > > > > So your comments are ridiculous (again). Double-talk. Non-Sense. so far as i know, oracle is oracle is oracle, no matter the platform. not so for DB2: 1) System 3X, had an un-named 'integrated database'. S36/8, IIRC. this may have been before... 2) System R the research implementation of Dr. Codd's paper 3) S38 morphed to AS/400 (Advanced System 400, get it?) which eventually identified the db as DB/400 4) DB2 MF, from System R 5) DB/400 became DB2 for AS/400... 6) which became just DB2 7) DB2 for AIX.... 8) which became DB2/UDB (after adding NT?) these are 3 different code bases, still not fully compatible at the DML level, much less DDL. is anyone at IBM willing to assert that they are now from 1 code base?

> these are 3 different code bases, still not fully compatible at the > DML level, much less DDL. is anyone at IBM willing to assert that they > are now from 1 code base? They are not the same code base. - DB2/400 is one code base (Oracle doesn't support that platform) - DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows is another code base - DB2 for OS/390 and z/OS is another code base (Oracle has a product on this platform, but it performs poorly compared to DB2 - because it shares the codebase of its other products, and most customers hardly ever use it even if it is installed). So among these three platform groups, Oracle is only widely used on one of them (Linux, UNIX ,and Windows) where DB2 does have the same codebase. Also note that DB2 for Linux runs on IBM mainframes (same code base as DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows).

"robert" <gnuoytr@rcn.com> schreef in bericht news:da3c2186.0406041436.898e949@posting.google.com... > "Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<c9vuc.76$XJ.51654@news.uswest.net>... > > > You can't call the fact that I, personally, have never run into > > > DB2 on Windows nonsense. And you sure can't dig your way out of it > > > by making reference to HP and Sun hardware unless you are somehow > > > equating Solaris with a Microsoft product. > > > > > > So I'll try the statement again ... I ... that means mean personally, in > > > 35 years in this industry ... seen DB2 on Windows in any organization > > > that didn't have DB2 also on another IBM platform such as a mainframe > > > or AS400. > > > > > > I can not be wrong about my personal experience. > > > > > > If you wish to prove that my personal experience is somehow skewed and > > > not representative of the database market as a whole ... then here's > > > how you can do it. > > > > > > Publish official numbers showing the number of DB2 licenses, on MS > > > Windows, that are in companies that are not also using DB2 on mainframes > > > or AS400. Simple. > > > > > > -- > > > Daniel Morgan > > > > I didn't say anything about your "personal experience." I just said your > > comments are nonsense. If you prefer: "your [limited] experience is > > non-sense." > > > > > > I have seen many DB2 installations on Windows. Since you live in Washington > > state, where there is an extreme MS bias, most companies use MS SQL Server > > on Windows. That combination is strong, but not quite as dominant in other > > parts of the country. > > > > > > > > Excluding all companies that also run DB2 on OS/390 and AS/400 is quite > > restrictive. I believe that are over 2000 companies who use DB2 on IBM > > mainframes. The number of companies that run AS/400 (or I series) is in the > > tens of thousands, and DB2 comes with the OS. > > > > > > > > So you seem to be excluding a huge percentage of the largest 5000 companies > > in the US (most of whom have at least one IBM mainframe running DB2 or an > > AS/400 which comes with DB2). > > > > > > > > So your comments are ridiculous (again). Double-talk. Non-Sense. > > so far as i know, oracle is oracle is oracle, no matter the platform. > not so for DB2: > Oracle is oracle is oracle? Why then does Oracle publish, next to their general documentation, also quite a few manuals specifically for Oracle on OS/390 ? <snip>

> > so far as i know, oracle is oracle is oracle, no matter the platform. > > not so for DB2: > > > > Oracle is oracle is oracle? > Why then does Oracle publish, next to their general documentation, also > quite a few manuals specifically for Oracle on OS/390 ? > Oracle on OS/390 is basically the same codebase as the other Oracle platforms. Which is the reason that it works so poorly on OS/390 and few of the companies who have it installed use it for production applications. Then why do companies (over 500) buy Oracle for OS/390 if it works so poorly compared to DB2 for OS/390. One consultant told me: "For the same reason that people buy pet rocks."

Precisely! The case is made that different code bases is actually better! You've got to have different exploitative code on each platform. And what really counts? From an application perspective, they are highly portable. DDL and DML compatibility are (last I heard) > 97% (and DDL must be slightly different between platforms to account for the differing storage constructs between them, e.g.). So ... no ... they are not from 1 code base ... but it's the next best thing ... they are close. Close and at the same time highly optimized for each platform. All things considered, pretty darn good considering that these are requirements that conflict with each other. Larry Edelstein Mark A wrote: >>these are 3 different code bases, still not fully compatible at the >>DML level, much less DDL. is anyone at IBM willing to assert that they >>are now from 1 code base? > > > They are not the same code base. > > - DB2/400 is one code base (Oracle doesn't support that platform) > - DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows is another code base > - DB2 for OS/390 and z/OS is another code base (Oracle has a product on this > platform, but it performs poorly compared to DB2 - because it shares the > codebase of its other products, and most customers hardly ever use it even > if it is installed). > > So among these three platform groups, Oracle is only widely used on one of > them (Linux, UNIX ,and Windows) where DB2 does have the same codebase. Also > note that DB2 for Linux runs on IBM mainframes (same code base as DB2 for > Linux, UNIX, and Windows). > >

You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find? "IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390 2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS 1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS 1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3 will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4 will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. " Does Informix run on OS/390? I would think this a match made in heaven... :-) "Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:E87wc.56$5Z4.43271@news.uswest.net... > > > so far as i know, oracle is oracle is oracle, no matter the platform. > > > not so for DB2: > > > > > > > Oracle is oracle is oracle? > > Why then does Oracle publish, next to their general documentation, also > > quite a few manuals specifically for Oracle on OS/390 ? > > > Oracle on OS/390 is basically the same codebase as the other Oracle > platforms. Which is the reason that it works so poorly on OS/390 and few of > the companies who have it installed use it for production applications. > > Then why do companies (over 500) buy Oracle for OS/390 if it works so poorly > compared to DB2 for OS/390. One consultant told me: "For the same reason > that people buy pet rocks." > >

"Data Goob" <datagoob@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:S7awc.8628$YQ3.8205@fe42.usenetserver.com... > You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site > about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to > IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find? > > "IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last > release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390 > 2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS > 1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS > 1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3 > will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4 > will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the > end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. " > > Does Informix run on OS/390? > > I would think this a match made in heaven... > > :-) Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform as a server to web clients.

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:ieawc.71$5Z4.53931@news.uswest.net... > "Data Goob" <datagoob@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:S7awc.8628$YQ3.8205@fe42.usenetserver.com... > > You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site > > about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to > > IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find? > > > > "IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last > > release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390 > > 2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS > > 1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS > > 1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3 > > will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4 > > will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the > > end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. " > > > > Does Informix run on OS/390? > > > > I would think this a match made in heaven... > > > > :-) > > Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It > is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform > as a server to web clients. > > OMG. Are you human? Just kidding! Seriously, is there something about this platform that is compelling enough to consider it instead of doing things on Linux or UNIX? Is z/OS a growth market or just something gradually disappearing?

> > Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It > > is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform > > as a server to web clients. > > > > > OMG. Are you human? Just kidding! Seriously, is there something about > this platform that is compelling enough to consider it instead of doing things > on Linux or UNIX? Is z/OS a growth market or just something gradually > disappearing? > The operating system and much of the system software on it is much more stable than Linux or UNIX, which is why many large enterprises rely on it for critical applications like banking, reservations, and other critical applications. Actually the IBM mainframe boxes themselves run Linux or z/OS. I don't think it is a growth market, nor is it disappearing. The mainframe prices keep decreasing, and UNIX boxes get more sophisticated and more expensive. So eventually it will probably just come down to which operating system you want to use. People get too hung-up on the past, and on the names of things. An IBM mainframe is just a box, that runs an operating system, and can run local application or with remote clients (including web clients). Things change.

It's hard to believe you'd be seriously asking this question. I can guarantee you that something you did within the past week (if not multiple things) touched an OS/390 or Z/os application. Banking, credit card, airline or car rental reservations system, the list goes on and on. Larry Edelstein Data Goob wrote: > "Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:ieawc.71$5Z4.53931@news.uswest.net... > >>"Data Goob" <datagoob@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:S7awc.8628$YQ3.8205@fe42.usenetserver.com... >> >>>You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site >>>about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to >>>IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find? >>> >>>"IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last >>>release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390 >>>2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS >>>1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS >>>1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3 >>>will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4 >>>will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the >>>end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. " >>> >>>Does Informix run on OS/390? >>> >>>I would think this a match made in heaven... >>> >>>:-) >> >>Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It >>is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform >>as a server to web clients. >> >> > > OMG. Are you human? Just kidding! Seriously, is there something about > this platform that is compelling enough to consider it instead of doing things > on Linux or UNIX? Is z/OS a growth market or just something gradually > disappearing? > > > >

"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:orawc.73$5Z4.54067@news.uswest.net... > > The operating system and much of the system software on it is much more > stable than Linux or UNIX, which is why many large enterprises rely on it > for critical applications like banking, reservations, and other critical > applications. Actually the IBM mainframe boxes themselves run Linux or z/OS. > When did this occur? I thought mainframes ran VM. > I don't think it is a growth market, nor is it disappearing. The mainframe > prices keep decreasing, and UNIX boxes get more sophisticated and more > expensive. So eventually it will probably just come down to which operating > system you want to use. > Hmmm. Interesting. > People get too hung-up on the past, and on the names of things. An IBM > mainframe is just a box, that runs an operating system, and can run local > application or with remote clients (including web clients). Things change. > ( runs around to catch him leaving and makes him stop ) Isn't VM considered one of the best OS's out there? Isn't that the OS on OS/390, or is it another name--guess I'm too much away from mainframe systems? But imagine this for a moment, Dieing database product hooks up with dieing hardware platform. I mean seriously, it would be interesting to see Informix and z/OS come together in an Open Source project of some kind. Like start out with just putting Informix SE on z/OS. WTF they're both dying animals, give it a shot.

> "Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:orawc.73$5Z4.54067@news.uswest.net... > > > > The operating system and much of the system software on it is much more > > stable than Linux or UNIX, which is why many large enterprises rely on it > > for critical applications like banking, reservations, and other critical > > applications. Actually the IBM mainframe boxes themselves run Linux or z/OS. > > > When did this occur? I thought mainframes ran VM. > > > I don't think it is a growth market, nor is it disappearing. The mainframe > > prices keep decreasing, and UNIX boxes get more sophisticated and more > > expensive. So eventually it will probably just come down to which operating > > system you want to use. > > > Hmmm. Interesting. > > > People get too hung-up on the past, and on the names of things. An IBM > > mainframe is just a box, that runs an operating system, and can run local > > application or with remote clients (including web clients). Things change. > > > ( runs around to catch him leaving and makes him stop ) > > Isn't VM considered one of the best OS's out there? Isn't that the OS > on OS/390, or is it another name--guess I'm too much away from mainframe > systems? > > But imagine this for a moment, Dieing database product hooks up with > dieing hardware platform. I mean seriously, it would be interesting to see > Informix and z/OS come together in an Open Source project of some kind. > Like start out with just putting Informix SE on z/OS. WTF they're both > dying animals, give it a shot. > OS/390 (previously known as MVS) is the operations system, not the hardware. I don't know what they call the boxes these days (which also run Linux). Yes the mainframe boxes do also run VM, but usually not for critical applications. VM (virtual machine) was originally created as operating system that could logically partition a box and run multiple different operating systems underneath it for testing purposes. Somehow it began to be used for certain interactive applications, but is not considered to be anywhere near the equal of MVS or OS/390. VSE is another old operating system that may still be around (I am not sure) that runs on mainframes. It was used by many small companies who did need the sophistication of MVS/OS390. Some airline reservation systems still run TPF operating system that was specifically designed for extremely high volume transactions. I am sure it being phased out, because it very expensive to find people to maintain the applications, which are written in assembler code and a proprietary built-in database product. At one time IBM was selling PC's that ran MVS/OS390 for software developers. It is perfectly conceivable that it could happen again.

Why would my question not be serious? I find the whole IBM landscape somewhat comical yet daunting. Lots of achievement and lots of angst over appearing too proud. On the flip side there is Oracle, with a lot of strutting around like a peacock, with totally undeserving value run by a pompous self-absorbed self-serving megalomaniac full of arrogance. But I'm getting redundant, and digress. There is a whole generation of computer users who will never see a mainframe, AS/400, OS/390, etc. etc. The fact that they won't know the value of old, big iron systems doesn't make them bad, it just means that a whole new generation of IT professionals are going to solve business problems outside the mainframe space, and would never even begin to consider them, instead trying to make Linux and Windows work faster and more efficiently. I'm simply asking questions about mainframes because I simply don't have a clue about that market, and find it curious that those that do, think that counting DB2 on AS/400 is irrelevant or lies when it is clear that they really don't know jack about the DB2 market. Anyway, I remain curious about some kind of hidden value in the mainframe space that cannot be found in the Linux or Windows space. Enlighten me. "Larry" <Larry@nospam.net> wrote in message news:dyawc.32$c76.208994@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net... > It's hard to believe you'd be seriously asking this question. I can > guarantee you that something you did within the past week (if not > multiple things) touched an OS/390 or Z/os application. Banking, credit > card, airline or car rental reservations system, the list goes on and on. > > Larry Edelstein > > Data Goob wrote: > > "Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:ieawc.71$5Z4.53931@news.uswest.net... > > > >>"Data Goob" <datagoob@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:S7awc.8628$YQ3.8205@fe42.usenetserver.com... > >> > >>>You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site > >>>about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to > >>>IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find? > >>> > >>>"IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last > >>>release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390 > >>>2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS > >>>1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS > >>>1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3 > >>>will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4 > >>>will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the > >>>end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. " > >>> > >>>Does Informix run on OS/390? > >>> > >>>I would think this a match made in heaven... > >>> > >>>:-) > >> > >>Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It > >>is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform > >>as a server to web clients. > >> > >> > > > > OMG. Are you human? Just kidding! Seriously, is there something about > > this platform that is compelling enough to consider it instead of doing things > > on Linux or UNIX? Is z/OS a growth market or just something gradually > > disappearing? > > > > > > > > >

"Data Goob" <datagoob@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:BVawc.1183$g12.672@fe41.usenetserver.com... > Why would my question not be serious? > > I find the whole IBM landscape somewhat comical yet > daunting. Lots of achievement and lots of angst > over appearing too proud. On the flip side there > is Oracle, with a lot of strutting around like a > peacock, with totally undeserving value run by a > pompous self-absorbed self-serving megalomaniac > full of arrogance. But I'm getting redundant, and > digress. There is a whole generation of computer > users who will never see a mainframe, AS/400, OS/390, > etc. etc. The fact that they won't know the value > of old, big iron systems doesn't make them bad, it > just means that a whole new generation of IT > professionals are going to solve business problems > outside the mainframe space, and would never even > begin to consider them, instead trying to make Linux > and Windows work faster and more efficiently. I'm > simply asking questions about mainframes because I > simply don't have a clue about that market, and find > it curious that those that do, think that counting DB2 > on AS/400 is irrelevant or lies when it is clear that > they really don't know jack about the DB2 market. > Anyway, I remain curious about some kind of hidden > value in the mainframe space that cannot be found in > the Linux or Windows space. Enlighten me. > Obviously UNIX, Linux, and Windows server technology, including the databases that run on them, have come a long way in a short time. I think that one reason most IT people will never develop on a mainframe is that you can't run it your PC at home. Also, the scope of IT has increased exponentially, so even if mainframes remain stable in terms of workload, the rest of IT is growing extremely fast. But I think most people would be amazed at how close they really are to mainframes in their everyday life. Telephone, gas, electric, oil companies, banks, brokerage houses, airlines, governments, etc. They are more pervasive than you would realize in your own life, albeit as a consumer. Whether mainframes survive is partially going to be whether they become price competitive with UNIX boxes. People are starting to realize that it takes a lot of personnel to maintain lots of small UNIX survivors in an enterprise. UNIX servers are becoming more larger and more consolidated, more like mainframes. Is a $5 million UNIX cluster a mainframe? Why not?

People are starting to realize that it > takes a lot of personnel to maintain lots of small UNIX survivors in an > enterprise. UNIX servers are becoming more larger and more consolidated, > more like mainframes. So by a zSeries, put Linux on it and put IDS on top of that! Works like a dream!! > I think that one reason most IT people will never develop on a mainframe is > that you can't run it your PC at home. But as everyone gets ADSL, and can "tunnel" into their companies internal network from the house, people can use their PC at home as if it was on their desk in the office. So again this perhaps start to change. I now have a PDA running a web browser, which has a desk top on it, and all my files are stored in my Informix database. Can access them all on my PC at work, at home, or on my PDA if I am "on the road". Not that far off Larry's thin client vision, except its a PDA and and Informix database, not a net computer and "O" "Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<F4bwc.81$5Z4.56723@news.uswest.net>... > "Data Goob" <datagoob@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:BVawc.1183$g12.672@fe41.usenetserver.com... > > Why would my question not be serious? > > > > I find the whole IBM landscape somewhat comical yet > > daunting. Lots of achievement and lots of angst > > over appearing too proud. On the flip side there > > is Oracle, with a lot of strutting around like a > > peacock, with totally undeserving value run by a > > pompous self-absorbed self-serving megalomaniac > > full of arrogance. But I'm getting redundant, and > > digress. There is a whole generation of computer > > users who will never see a mainframe, AS/400, OS/390, > > etc. etc. The fact that they won't know the value > > of old, big iron systems doesn't make them bad, it > > just means that a whole new generation of IT > > professionals are going to solve business problems > > outside the mainframe space, and would never even > > begin to consider them, instead trying to make Linux > > and Windows work faster and more efficiently. I'm > > simply asking questions about mainframes because I > > simply don't have a clue about that market, and find > > it curious that those that do, think that counting DB2 > > on AS/400 is irrelevant or lies when it is clear that > > they really don't know jack about the DB2 market. > > Anyway, I remain curious about some kind of hidden > > value in the mainframe space that cannot be found in > > the Linux or Windows space. Enlighten me. > > > Obviously UNIX, Linux, and Windows server technology, including the > databases that run on them, have come a long way in a short time. > > I think that one reason most IT people will never develop on a mainframe is > that you can't run it your PC at home. Also, the scope of IT has increased > exponentially, so even if mainframes remain stable in terms of workload, the > rest of IT is growing extremely fast. > > But I think most people would be amazed at how close they really are to > mainframes in their everyday life. Telephone, gas, electric, oil companies, > banks, brokerage houses, airlines, governments, etc. They are more pervasive > than you would realize in your own life, albeit as a consumer. > > Whether mainframes survive is partially going to be whether they become > price competitive with UNIX boxes. People are starting to realize that it > takes a lot of personnel to maintain lots of small UNIX survivors in an > enterprise. UNIX servers are becoming more larger and more consolidated, > more like mainframes. Is a $5 million UNIX cluster a mainframe? Why not?

"scottishpoet" <dryburghj@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:81714288.0406050234.134b81ee@posting.google.com... > But as everyone gets ADSL, and can "tunnel" into their companies > internal network from the house, people can use their PC at home as if > it was on their desk in the office. So again this perhaps start to > change. I now have a PDA running a web browser, which has a desk top > on it, and all my files are stored in my Informix database. Can access > them all on my PC at work, at home ... You don't have NTL at home then?!

Basically ... one places an application on the mainframe (vs. on Intel/AMD/UNIX) when one needs the bullet-proof reliability, availability, security, and performance that the mainframe has had the time to attain as it is the most mature of all the platforms. There are companies like BMC and CA that have made billions of dollars developing and selling tools for monitoring and administering the mainframe environment. Every day, something you do touches a mainframe. Most banks, brokerage firms, airlines, car rental agencies, etc. use mainframes for their critical applications. While the Intel/AMD/UNIX platforms have made tremendous strides over the years, they just do not yet approach what the mainframe can offer in the above areas. Yes, they are more expensive to manage and administer. But that cost is justified by the "protection" that they offer, or else customers wouldn't pay it. Larry Edelstein Data Goob wrote: > Why would my question not be serious? > > I find the whole IBM landscape somewhat comical yet > daunting. Lots of achievement and lots of angst > over appearing too proud. On the flip side there > is Oracle, with a lot of strutting around like a > peacock, with totally undeserving value run by a > pompous self-absorbed self-serving megalomaniac > full of arrogance. But I'm getting redundant, and > digress. There is a whole generation of computer > users who will never see a mainframe, AS/400, OS/390, > etc. etc. The fact that they won't know the value > of old, big iron systems doesn't make them bad, it > just means that a whole new generation of IT > professionals are going to solve business problems > outside the mainframe space, and would never even > begin to consider them, instead trying to make Linux > and Windows work faster and more efficiently. I'm > simply asking questions about mainframes because I > simply don't have a clue about that market, and find > it curious that those that do, think that counting DB2 > on AS/400 is irrelevant or lies when it is clear that > they really don't know jack about the DB2 market. > Anyway, I remain curious about some kind of hidden > value in the mainframe space that cannot be found in > the Linux or Windows space. Enlighten me. > > > "Larry" <Larry@nospam.net> wrote in message news:dyawc.32$c76.208994@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net... > >>It's hard to believe you'd be seriously asking this question. I can >>guarantee you that something you did within the past week (if not >>multiple things) touched an OS/390 or Z/os application. Banking, credit >>card, airline or car rental reservations system, the list goes on and on. >> >>Larry Edelstein >> >>Data Goob wrote: >> >>>"Mark A" <ma@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:ieawc.71$5Z4.53931@news.uswest.net... >>> >>> >>>>"Data Goob" <datagoob@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:S7awc.8628$YQ3.8205@fe42.usenetserver.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>You guys got me thinking, what would I find on IBM's web site >>>>>about OS/390? Got my curiousity going, and so I went over to >>>>>IBM and did a search for OS/390. What did I find? >>>>> >>>>>"IBM announces the end of service for OS/390 2.10, the last >>>>>release of OS/390, will be September 30, 2004. Customers on OS/390 >>>>>2.10 should be making plans to complete their migrations to z/OS >>>>>1.4 by this date. IBM also announces the end of service for z/OS >>>>>1.2 will be October 31, 2004, and the end of service for z/OS 1.3 >>>>>will be March 31, 2005, as planned. The end of service for z/OS 1.4 >>>>>will be extended to March 31, 2007. This date is the same as the >>>>>end of service date planned for z/OS 1.5. " >>>>> >>>>>Does Informix run on OS/390? >>>>> >>>>>I would think this a match made in heaven... >>>>> >>>>>:-) >>>> >>>>Support service for OS/390 is being discontinued and is replaced by z/OS. It >>>>is basically the same thing as OS/390, but with enhanced ability to perform >>>>as a server to web clients. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>OMG. Are you human? Just kidding! Seriously, is there something about >>>this platform that is compelling enough to consider it instead of doing things >>>on Linux or UNIX? Is z/OS a growth market or just something gradually >>>disappearing? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >