Re: database market share 2003
Not a technical support thread but a vendor/market-share argument. The dispute: whether major ERP packages (SAP R/3, PeopleSoft, Siebel, JD Edwards) originated on Oracle and were later ported to DB2/Informix/Sybase/SQL Server, or whether they began life on IBM mainframes. Participants traded claims about SAP R2 on MVS using VSAM, R/3's Oracle-centric start, JD Edwards' S/3X and AS/400 roots, SAP training courses taught by IBM, and SAP's commercial motives for favouring DB2. No agreement or resolution was reached; the exchange degenerated into flaming.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Well, SAP R3, and applications from Peoplesoft, Siebel and JD Edwards, many of which were written for Oracle and later ported to DB2, Sybase, Informix IDS and SQL Server in the 1990's, have had extensive investment from their owners to be "anything but Oracle" as their internal RDBMS development platform. Noons wrote: > Which apps have > been "ported" AWAY from Oracle?
Blair Adamache <badamache@nospamtodaysiryahoo.com> wrote in message news:<40CD153D.F0B5FF68@nospamtodaysiryahoo.com>... > Well, SAP R3, and applications from Peoplesoft, Siebel and JD Edwards, many of > Absolute total and utter nonsense. SAP, Siebel, JD Edwards and many others were written FIRST for IBM mainframe environments. That is where their origin lies. To claim that they "moved away" from Oracle is the perfect definition of historical revisionism a-la IBM! Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
I thought SAP R2 was written for MVS, and SAP R3 was written first for Oracle, and then moved to DB2 (on MVS, UNIX and Windows). Certainly the SAP of the early 1990's bought into all the IBM cross-platform fun (Strategic Systems Architecture, perhaps even Common User Access). Early versions of SAP were also written for Adabas (perhaps R1?), but the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has invested quite a bit to change this. In my recollection, JD Edwards was never a mainframe software vendor. Their backgrounds is IBM S3/X and AS/400, which are known as mid-range or minicomputer systems. I could be wrong, and whether I am wrong or not, I welcome the appropriately disparaging retort from yourself or Captain Morgan. Noons wrote: > Blair Adamache <badamache@nospamtodaysiryahoo.com> wrote in message news:<40CD153D.F0B5FF68@nospamtodaysiryahoo.com>... > >>Well, SAP R3, and applications from Peoplesoft, Siebel and JD Edwards, many of >> > > > Absolute total and utter nonsense. SAP, Siebel, JD Edwards and many > others were written FIRST for IBM mainframe environments. That is > where their origin lies. To claim that they "moved away" from > Oracle is the perfect definition of historical revisionism a-la IBM! > > Cheers > Nuno Souto > wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message news:<73e20c6c.0406142335.272026fe@posting.google.com>... > > Absolute total and utter nonsense. SAP, Siebel, JD Edwards and many > others were written FIRST for IBM mainframe environments. That is > where their origin lies. To claim that they "moved away" from > Oracle is the perfect definition of historical revisionism a-la IBM! Will you get over it already? You're filling the newsgroups up with crap - apparently out of some weird need to downplay IBM's market share. Although an analysis of these trends is interesting - it certainly isn't when subject to this kind of bullshit. Just let it go.... buck
Buck Nuggets wrote: > wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message news:<73e20c6c.0406142335.272026fe@posting.google.com>... > >>Absolute total and utter nonsense. SAP, Siebel, JD Edwards and many >>others were written FIRST for IBM mainframe environments. That is >>where their origin lies. To claim that they "moved away" from >>Oracle is the perfect definition of historical revisionism a-la IBM! > > > Will you get over it already? You're filling the newsgroups up with > crap - apparently out of some weird need to downplay IBM's market > share. > > Although an analysis of these trends is interesting - it certainly > isn't when subject to this kind of bullshit. > > Just let it go.... > > buck Buck ... your protest would be far more genuine if you just acknowledged the fact that what Noon wrote is correct. These systems all started on IBM mainframes. Ask me how I know. ;-) -- 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)
Blair Adamache wrote: > the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has > invested quite a bit to change this. Hmm - I guess this level of investment to non 'Oracle-centric' solutions doesn't actually extend to training then - from the SAP web site BC535 - Database Administration - DB2 UDB (4.6) - This course is currently not scheduled. BC530 - Database Administration - DB2/390 (4.6) - This course is currently not scheduled. BC511 - Database Administration - Informix Online (4.6C) - This course is currently not scheduled. SAP, Seibel, Peoplesoft etc are not stupid, and are as market driven as any other company. Their customers want their products on the Oracle database, and no amount of postulating or hand waving from other database vendors is going to change that. In fact, there is significant evidence to show that Oracle's market share under these packaged applications is actually growing (and indeed, that IBM's share is declining).
Daniel Morgan wrote: > Buck Nuggets wrote: > >> wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message >> news:<73e20c6c.0406142335.272026fe@posting.google.com>... >> >>>Absolute total and utter nonsense. SAP, Siebel, JD Edwards and many >>>others were written FIRST for IBM mainframe environments. That is >>>where their origin lies. To claim that they "moved away" from >>>Oracle is the perfect definition of historical revisionism a-la IBM! >> >> >> Will you get over it already? You're filling the newsgroups up with >> crap - apparently out of some weird need to downplay IBM's market >> share. >> >> Although an analysis of these trends is interesting - it certainly >> isn't when subject to this kind of bullshit. >> >> Just let it go.... >> >> buck > > Buck ... your protest would be far more genuine if you just acknowledged > the fact that what Noon wrote is correct. These systems all started on > IBM mainframes. Ask me how I know. ;-) Might be you know, but I donot care. Can you please shut up. Oracle poeple like old women with wet under cloths. -- Enor
"Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend@comcast.net> schreef in bericht news:%WDzc.36077$2i5.12718@attbi_s52... > Blair Adamache wrote: > > > the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has > > invested quite a bit to change this. > > Hmm - I guess this level of investment to non 'Oracle-centric' solutions > doesn't actually extend to training then - from the SAP web site > > BC535 - Database Administration - DB2 UDB (4.6) - This course is > currently not scheduled. > BC530 - Database Administration - DB2/390 (4.6) - This course is > currently not scheduled. > BC511 - Database Administration - Informix Online (4.6C) - This course > is currently not scheduled. > It seems like you're bending the truth a little bit here. I had a look at this page on the SAP USA Education site: http://www.sap.com/usa/education/curriculum/course.asp?cid=60051017 for course BC530, and it says perfectly clear (even highlighted in red): ============================================================================ ====== This course is taught by IBM. To Register, please Call 1-800-IBM-TEACH and refer to course code "ES530". ============================================================================ ====== AFAIK, it is part of an agreement between SAP and IBM, where SAP teaches the application stuff and IBM the database related subjects. (I know this to be true for OS390/zOS, not sure about Informix or DB2 on other platforms).
"Blair Adamache" <badamache@2muchspam.yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:camsut$dv1$1@hanover.torolab.ibm.com... > I thought SAP R2 was written for MVS, and SAP R3 was written first for > Oracle, and then moved to DB2 (on MVS, UNIX and Windows). > > Certainly the SAP of the early 1990's bought into all the IBM > cross-platform fun (Strategic Systems Architecture, perhaps even Common > User Access). Early versions of SAP were also written for Adabas > (perhaps R1?), but the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has > invested quite a bit to change this. > > In my recollection, JD Edwards was never a mainframe software vendor. > Their backgrounds is IBM S3/X and AS/400, which are known as mid-range > or minicomputer systems. > I don't know about the other apps., but SAP R2 indeed was written for MVS. It wasn't build for relational dbms's though, but relied upon VSAM. Because SAP wanted to support relational dbms's, they came up with SAP R/3. Initially (iirc) they developed their own dbms for this, but with C/S and distributed db's becoming more and more important, it seemed only logical for them to switch to Oracle for their development efforts. Later on, SAP decided to go with DB2 for appl. development, mainly because Oracle did become a big competitor for them, and DB2/UDB apparently was mature enough to be a viable alternative for them. Nothing to do with SAP first (technically) preferring Oracle and now DB2, just commercial/marketing reasons, imho. As long as customers use their apps. and not Oracle's, SAP doesn't really care which db-platform they use for it.
> I don't know about the other apps., but SAP R2 indeed was written for MVS. > It wasn't build for relational dbms's though, but relied upon VSAM. > Because SAP wanted to support relational dbms's, they came up with SAP R/3. > Initially (iirc) they developed their own dbms for this, but with C/S and > distributed db's becoming more and more important, it seemed only logical > for them to switch to Oracle for their development efforts. > Later on, SAP decided to go with DB2 for appl. development, mainly because > Oracle did become a big competitor for them, and DB2/UDB apparently was > mature enough to be a viable alternative for them. > Nothing to do with SAP first (technically) preferring Oracle and now DB2, > just commercial/marketing reasons, imho. As long as customers use their > apps. and not Oracle's, SAP doesn't really care which db-platform they use > for it. > Oracle application software is one of SAP's biggest competitors, so I can see why they are anxious to not depend on Oracle DBMS. Things would have gotten really touchy had the Oracle-PeopleSoft merger gone through. Since IBM is also a huge SAP customer for IBM internal systems, that doesn't hurt either.
Talk about changing the subject to avoid the issue. Weren't we talking about the major ERP ISVs and whether or not they were "built" for IBM mainframes and whether or not they were moving away from Oracle for their own internal use? Truth Seeker Mark Townsend wrote: > Blair Adamache wrote: > >> the SAP we know today was Oracle-centric, and SAP has >> invested quite a bit to change this. > > > Hmm - I guess this level of investment to non 'Oracle-centric' solutions > doesn't actually extend to training then - from the SAP web site > > BC535 - Database Administration - DB2 UDB (4.6) - This course is > currently not scheduled. > BC530 - Database Administration - DB2/390 (4.6) - This course is > currently not scheduled. > BC511 - Database Administration - Informix Online (4.6C) - This course > is currently not scheduled. > > SAP, Seibel, Peoplesoft etc are not stupid, and are as market driven as > any other company. Their customers want their products on the Oracle > database, and no amount of postulating or hand waving from other > database vendors is going to change that. In fact, there is significant > evidence to show that Oracle's market share under these packaged > applications is actually growing (and indeed, that IBM's share is > declining). >