Re: database market share 2003

> IMHO IBM is rather bad about naming things..... Right. Like actually understanding what words mean, or pretending they don't mean anything. Like "Common" Server. Like the "Universal" Database for Windows, Unix and Linux. Like the (other) "Universal" Database for OS/390. Or like the other Universal Database for iSeries. Like Truth in Marketing. But then again, people in unbreakable houses shouldn't throw stones.

Mark Townsend wrote: > >> IMHO IBM is rather bad about naming things..... > > > Right. Like actually understanding what words mean, or pretending they > don't mean anything. Like "Common" Server. Like the "Universal" Database > for Windows, Unix and Linux. Like the (other) "Universal" Database for > OS/390. Or like the other Universal Database for iSeries. Like Truth in > Marketing. But then again, people in unbreakable houses shouldn't throw > stones. > Given the length of thsi thread it can certainly be forgiven that I explained teh meaning of "Universal". It has nothing to do with platforms. All about extensibility. But as you say no use throwing universal at grids... Marketing... -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau wrote: > Mark Townsend wrote: > >> >>> IMHO IBM is rather bad about naming things..... >> >> >> >> Right. Like actually understanding what words mean, or pretending they >> don't mean anything. Like "Common" Server. Like the "Universal" >> Database for Windows, Unix and Linux. Like the (other) "Universal" >> Database for OS/390. Or like the other Universal Database for iSeries. >> Like Truth in Marketing. But then again, people in unbreakable houses >> shouldn't throw stones. >> > Given the length of thsi thread it can certainly be forgiven that I > explained teh meaning of "Universal". It has nothing to do with > platforms. All about extensibility. > But as you say no use throwing universal at grids... Marketing... > So lets look at this a little further. You said Universal is a moniker that applies to the suite of DB2 products that contain > a certain set of basic OR functionality such as distinct types, LOBs, functions and procedures, ... and these products are > All about extensibility. So within this (rather narrow) definition, can we expect the Universal products to be the same ? Here are the extenders for DB2 Universal - all managing distinct types, some using LOBs, all have functions and procedures, all are fine examples of extensibility DB2 Net Search Extender DB2 Text Information Extender DB2 Text Extender DB2 Audio Extender DB2 Image Extender DB2 Video Extender DB2 XML Extender DB2 Spatial Extender Which of these universal extensibility capabilities are available for DB2 Universal Database for OS/390 ? Which of these universal extensibility capabilities are available for DB2 Universal Database for iSeries ? And in fact, which of these universal extensibility capabilities are indeed available on ALL the supported platforms that DB2 Universal Database for LUW is currently available on ? You know, the one that does actually share a code base ? Where the universal extensibility capabilities are actually available on all platforms, are there any platform differences between the implementations ?

Mark Townsend wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: > >> Mark Townsend wrote: >> >>> >>>> IMHO IBM is rather bad about naming things..... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Right. Like actually understanding what words mean, or pretending >>> they don't mean anything. Like "Common" Server. Like the "Universal" >>> Database for Windows, Unix and Linux. Like the (other) "Universal" >>> Database for OS/390. Or like the other Universal Database for >>> iSeries. Like Truth in Marketing. But then again, people in >>> unbreakable houses shouldn't throw stones. >>> >> Given the length of thsi thread it can certainly be forgiven that I >> explained teh meaning of "Universal". It has nothing to do with >> platforms. All about extensibility. >> But as you say no use throwing universal at grids... Marketing... >> > > So lets look at this a little further. You said Universal is a moniker > that applies to the suite of DB2 products that contain > >> a certain set of basic OR functionality such as distinct types, LOBs, >> functions and procedures, ... > > and these products are > >> All about extensibility. > > > So within this (rather narrow) definition, can we expect the Universal > products to be the same ? Here are the extenders for DB2 Universal - all > managing distinct types, some using LOBs, all have functions and > procedures, all are fine examples of extensibility > > DB2 Net Search Extender > DB2 Text Information Extender > DB2 Text Extender > DB2 Audio Extender > DB2 Image Extender > DB2 Video Extender > DB2 XML Extender > DB2 Spatial Extender > > Which of these universal extensibility capabilities are available for > DB2 Universal Database for OS/390 ? > > Which of these universal extensibility capabilities are available for > DB2 Universal Database for iSeries ? > > And in fact, which of these universal extensibility capabilities are > indeed available on ALL the supported platforms that DB2 Universal > Database for LUW is currently available on ? You know, the one that does > actually share a code base ? > > Where the universal extensibility capabilities are actually available on > all platforms, are there any platform differences between the > implementations ? > Mark, Did I talk about Universal being a testimony of IBM selling the same extenders on all platforms? Are we in process of creating another myth here? "IBMer claimed..!" Even if extenders would need to be changed (which I don't know) when going against DB2 AS/400 or DB2 z/Series it would still be irrelevant since Oracle cartridges are effectively a no show on these platforms. Aside, you are an executive, you know what a spreadsheet looks like. Given that DB2 runs on one codebase across Unix, Windows and Linux I'm sure the reason that certain extenders may be sold only on certain of these platforms is not a technical issue. It's some executives decision after staring down a spreadsheet. I presume similar decisions are made at Oracle. Like: Do all Oracle apps and cartidges running on Oracle DB also run on Oracle on Linux/zSeries? (and are thre customer actually doing it) Or why doesn't Daimler Chrysler sell the A-Class in North Amerika? Must be the roads being incompatible. Couldn't possibly be a business decision. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau wrote: > Even if extenders would need to be changed (which I don't know) when > going against DB2 AS/400 or DB2 z/Series it would still be irrelevant > since Oracle cartridges are effectively a no show on these platforms. > > Cheers > Serge Oracle 'cartridges'? How long as it been since you've looked at Oracle? -- 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 Morgan wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: > >> Even if extenders would need to be changed (which I don't know) when >> going against DB2 AS/400 or DB2 z/Series it would still be irrelevant >> since Oracle cartridges are effectively a no show on these platforms. >> >> Cheers >> Serge > > > Oracle 'cartridges'? How long as it been since you've looked at Oracle? > Well, everyone knows what I meant, right? What is the name du jour? Package? -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Actually, Oracle does a lousy job of extesibility. Informix has it done right, however, it took them quite some time in getting Stonebraker's stuff morphed in to IDS. Its a pitty cause that's what helped cause Phil's downfall. He saw the vision, yet no one understood how to sell/market it and how to integrate it in to the existing platform. I worked with Oracle 8i. Their "object relational" approach was garbage then and I seriously doubt things have changed much. Serge Rielau wrote: > Daniel Morgan wrote: > >> Serge Rielau wrote: >> >>> Even if extenders would need to be changed (which I don't know) when >>> going against DB2 AS/400 or DB2 z/Series it would still be irrelevant >>> since Oracle cartridges are effectively a no show on these platforms. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Serge >> >> >> >> Oracle 'cartridges'? How long as it been since you've looked at Oracle? >> > Well, everyone knows what I meant, right? What is the name du jour? > Package? >