Re: database market share 2003
Not a technical support thread but an off-topic flame war spun off from a "database market share 2003" discussion. Participants argue over whether IBM pressures customers via sales tactics, why some Fortune 25 firms bought Oracle for OS/390 yet never ran it in production, vendor lock-in versus Linux, the state of plug-compatible mainframe hardware (Amdahl, Hitachi), and whether IBM's claim of a "single code base across the DB2 family" covers z/OS or only the Linux/UNIX/Windows versions and the Java universal driver. The exchange degenerates into insults and ends with no agreement or resolution; nothing actionable is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 3:02 PM: > You make it sound like IBM has the power of the mafia. I don't think so. I very much think so, having been on the receiving end of their sales techniques for a looooooong time.... > Actually, a surprising number of companies have purchased Oracle for OS/390. > Oracle gave me 5 references in the Fortune top 25 companies in the US. I > checked all 5 out, and all 5 purchased it, but not one was using it for a > production system. That to me spells one thing and one thing only: there is a surprising number of companies that are looking at ANY way of becoming LESS dependent on IBM. I wonder why... Unfortunately, there are very few people left around that know exactly how to take advantage of that. -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
Noons wrote: > Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 3:02 PM: > >> You make it sound like IBM has the power of the mafia. I don't think so. > > > I very much think so, having been on the receiving end of their > sales techniques for a looooooong time.... > > >> Actually, a surprising number of companies have purchased Oracle for >> OS/390. >> Oracle gave me 5 references in the Fortune top 25 companies in the US. I >> checked all 5 out, and all 5 purchased it, but not one was using it for a >> production system. > > > That to me spells one thing and one thing only: there is a surprising > number of companies that are looking at ANY way of becoming LESS > dependent on IBM. I wonder why... > Unfortunately, there are very few people left around that know > exactly how to take advantage of that. You confuse two things: Buying/using a company's product and becoming dependent on a company. You are right though that customers don't like to be dependent of a company whether it is IBM, Oracle or MS. That is probably why Linux is growing rapidly in spite of MS accusations that it is more expensive to administer. Might also explain why Oracle is growing much less than its rivals. Ever tried to port SQLForm applications? -- Anton Versteeg IBM Certified DB2 Specialist IBM Netherlands
"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:40c9833c$0$1582$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 3:02 PM: > > > You make it sound like IBM has the power of the mafia. I don't think so. > > I very much think so, having been on the receiving end of their > sales techniques for a looooooong time.... > Sales techniques? Maybe you could explain your libelous statement in detail. I doubt very much that your were in a decision making postion anyway, which is what you are really complaining about. > > > Actually, a surprising number of companies have purchased Oracle for OS/390. > > Oracle gave me 5 references in the Fortune top 25 companies in the US. I > > checked all 5 out, and all 5 purchased it, but not one was using it for a > > production system. > > That to me spells one thing and one thing only: there is a surprising > number of companies that are looking at ANY way of becoming LESS > dependent on IBM. I wonder why... > Unfortunately, there are very few people left around that know > exactly how to take advantage of that. > -- > Cheers > Nuno Souto Not exactly. You have a limited imagination. They bought Oracle on a smaller platform and believed the hype that Oracle could successfully port their application to any platform. As one consultant told me, the reason that people buy Oracle on OS/390 (even though it doesn't work well on that platform) is the same reason that people buy pet rocks. Now that is real marketing.
Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 9:00 PM: >>I very much think so, having been on the receiving end of their >>sales techniques for a looooooong time.... >> > > Sales techniques? Maybe you could explain your libelous statement in detail. > I doubt very much that your were in a decision making postion anyway, which > is what you are really complaining about. Libelous was your mother! Go and intimidate her, she might be impressed... > platform and believed the hype that Oracle could successfully port their > application to any platform. Oracle" does not "port" anything, nor does the company claim any of that. Looks like you're the one with too much imagination... > As one consultant told me, the reason that > people buy Oracle on OS/390 (even though it doesn't work well on that > platform) is the same reason that people buy pet rocks. Now that is real > marketing. Yeah, we call those "con-sultants".... -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
> >> You make it sound like IBM has the power of the mafia. I don't think so. > > > > Noons wrote: > > I very much think so, having been on the receiving end of their > > sales techniques for a looooooong time.... > > In my experience, the two companies that most IT shops fear the most these days, and wish they were less dependent on, are Oracle and CA. There is not much argument about that, even if people do like their products. People no longer fear IBM, and because of government regulation over the years of IBM as a monopoly, there is plug compatible competition at virtually every level (even mainframe hardware).
Anton Versteeg allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 8:52 PM: > rivals. Ever tried to port SQLForm applications? No. Why should I? They work perfectly well across many, many platforms. Unlike the M$ crap, or CICS... -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
> > rivals. Ever tried to port SQLForm applications? > > > No. Why should I? They work perfectly well across many, > many platforms. Unlike the M$ crap, or CICS... > > -- > Cheers > Nuno Souto You obviously don't pay the bills.
Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 9:33 PM: > People no longer fear IBM, IME, you're full of shit. > and because of government regulation over the > years of IBM as a monopoly, which stopped about 15 years ago, but the "folks" keep invoking it as if it was magically still in effect... > there is plug compatible competition at > virtually every level (even mainframe hardware). No there isn't. If there has been a change in IT in the last 5 years it is PRECISELY the absence of any serious competition to IBM hardware anywhere other than in Unix. One of the "little" results of Reaganomics. As for software, it's impossible to compete with a company that claims to "run" everything everywhere... -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 9:37 PM: > > > You obviously don't pay the bills. > > The IBM bills? No I don't. -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
> > and because of government regulation over the > > years of IBM as a monopoly, > > which stopped about 15 years ago, but the "folks" > keep invoking it as if it was magically still in effect... > Where did you get that information? Not true, it is still in effect for mainframe stuff. Companies have been able to buy absolutely plug compatible mainframe hardware for many years. > > there is plug compatible competition at > > virtually every level (even mainframe hardware). > > No there isn't. If there has been a change in IT > in the last 5 years it is PRECISELY the absence > of any serious competition to IBM hardware anywhere > other than in Unix. One of the "little" results of > Reaganomics. > If the plug compatible hardware vendors have stopped competing, it is because IBM lowered their prices so much to compete with UNIX and Windows platforms. IBM is still required to provide mainframe microcode to the competitors if they want to make plug compatible hardware. > As for software, it's impossible to compete with a > company that claims to "run" everything everywhere... > -- You must be talking about Oracle.
Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 9:46 PM: > > Where did you get that information? Not true, it is still in effect for > mainframe stuff. Companies have been able to buy absolutely plug compatible > mainframe hardware for many years. Where? > If the plug compatible hardware vendors have stopped competing, it is > because IBM lowered their prices so much to compete with UNIX and Windows > platforms. IBM is still required to provide mainframe microcode to the > competitors if they want to make plug compatible hardware. WTH wants to make pcm stuff to compete with a virtual monopoly in discount wars? Helllloooooooo? > >>As for software, it's impossible to compete with a >>company that claims to "run" everything everywhere... >>-- > > You must be talking about Oracle. Nope. Oracle claims they run their DB everywhere. IBM claims it can run EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE. Try reading, next time. Then again, claims are easy... Just like the "single code base for DB2" that "NEVER was mentioned at IBM": http://tinyurl.com/2nd2j Ooooo, bugger! Only 430962 matches? and, just picking one result at random: http://tinyurl.com/2ygua <quote> Roger: Many of the enterprise applications are using Java. V8 Java support is more consistent across platforms as we use a single code base across the DB2 family. Improved SQL consistency also adds new function to DB2 </quote> Of course, it's all errors, omissions, people badly intentioned, no way IBM "approves this sort of statement", etcetc... <sigh> Some of the "folks" like to have it rubbed in your faces, don't you? <retraction> BTW, nothing to do with Blair. I was wrong in thinking he had claimed it in the old thread. Its start has been obliterated from google and Blair's posts are not the ones I was looking for. Many thanks for helping me here Blair, it is much appreciated. Only wish others at IBM had yours and Serge's helpful attitudes. You folks are a credit to your workplace and company. </retraction> -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:40c9a00e$0$31675$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 9:46 PM: > > > > > Where did you get that information? Not true, it is still in effect for > > mainframe stuff. Companies have been able to buy absolutely plug compatible > > mainframe hardware for many years. > > Where? Amdhal and Hitrachi Data Systems. But I really don't know if they still make plug compatibles anymore, since mainframe prices have come down so much. > > > If the plug compatible hardware vendors have stopped competing, it is > > because IBM lowered their prices so much to compete with UNIX and Windows > > platforms. IBM is still required to provide mainframe microcode to the > > competitors if they want to make plug compatible hardware. > > WTH wants to make pcm stuff to compete with a virtual monopoly > in discount wars? Helllloooooooo? > Gene Amdahl became a very rich man making Amdahl mainframes that were plug compatible with IBMs. > > > > > Just like the "single code base for DB2" that "NEVER > was mentioned at IBM": > > http://tinyurl.com/2nd2j > They are clearly talking about the same code base for DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows. I have never seen them claim that DB2 for OS/390 has the same codebase as other DB2's. > Ooooo, bugger! Only 430962 matches? > > and, just picking one result at random: > > http://tinyurl.com/2ygua > Try looking a little closer. He is talking about the The Java Universal Driver which does use the same code base accross all platforms.
"Anton Versteeg" <anton_versteeg@nnll.ibm.com> wrote in message news:cac2u8$1c9c$1@sp15en20.hursley.ibm.com... > > > Noons wrote: > > Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 3:02 PM: > > > >> You make it sound like IBM has the power of the mafia. I don't think so. > > > > > > I very much think so, having been on the receiving end of their > > sales techniques for a looooooong time.... > > > > > >> Actually, a surprising number of companies have purchased Oracle for > >> OS/390. > >> Oracle gave me 5 references in the Fortune top 25 companies in the US. I > >> checked all 5 out, and all 5 purchased it, but not one was using it for a > >> production system. > > > > > > That to me spells one thing and one thing only: there is a surprising > > number of companies that are looking at ANY way of becoming LESS > > dependent on IBM. I wonder why... > > Unfortunately, there are very few people left around that know > > exactly how to take advantage of that. > > You confuse two things: > Buying/using a company's product and becoming dependent on a company. > You are right though that customers don't like to be dependent of a > company whether it is IBM, Oracle or MS. That is probably why Linux is > growing rapidly in spite of MS accusations that it is more expensive to > administer. Might also explain why Oracle is growing much less than its > rivals. Ever tried to port SQLForm applications? > -- > Anton Versteeg > IBM Certified DB2 Specialist > IBM Netherlands > FWIW, again as if my opinion matters, you hit the nail on the head. We depend on one vendor or another to solve business problems, and that includes Microsoft. We'll trade one dependency for another, that's what business is all about, and that includes depending on Linux vendors to deliver solutions. If we had to compare products on price alone MS would be eating everyones' lunch. But we could not make a decision on the license cost alone, it boils down to capability more than anything. The fact or non-fact about a particular version of a database is quite irrelevant in our world, where we do know what is appropriate for our environment--and isn't that what good technicians and good analysts are all about, making appropriate choices for the companies we work in? DB2 is in so many ways right for **our** environment, but it might not be right elsewhere. Honestly, it runs circles around SQL-Server in speed and runs on cheap hardware on Linux with almost no downtime. It remains an academic arguement, but even on the most fleeting of examinations Oracle would cost us a lot more in many more ways, and that's not FUD, it was a simple analysis of the product, and what it would really cost us. The cost is one of the key elements in the often overused "value proposition" of building a system that will return some kind of value back to the business. We should be able to see with glaringly simple logic and basic math what works for us and what doesn't. Some companies have money to blow we didn't. Cost does not just mean the license, it means training and supporting the system, and when does it return value back to the business. We could not determine much of that from Oracle so it did not pass go. It wasn't a religious argument, just business. Linux runs faster than Microsoft, it isn't a religious statement, it's just a fact. We made a helluva lot of money on our systems running SQL-Server, that wasn't a religious thing, just business. Oracle is the most expensive, that's not a religious statement just a fact. Nothing is perfect but you should be able to determine value back to the business with basic analysis. ( Incidental to the decision it's nice to know Informix technology is coming into DB2--that's a nice bonus point :-)
Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 10:17 PM: > > Amdhal and Hitrachi Data Systems. But I really don't know if they still make > plug compatibles anymore, since mainframe prices have come down so much. Then WTH are you claiming that it is still done? > Gene Amdahl became a very rich man making Amdahl mainframes that were plug > compatible with IBMs. So what? Who's talking about what happened 20 years ago? I said: in the last 5 years. Can you stay within the subject for a second? >> >>http://tinyurl.com/2nd2j >> > > > They are clearly talking about the same code base for DB2 for Linux, UNIX, > and Windows. I have never seen them claim that DB2 for OS/390 has the same > codebase as other DB2's. > > Try looking a little closer. He is talking about the The Java Universal > Driver which does use the same code base accross all platforms. crapcrapcrap.... remarkably, the phrase is: "as we use a single code base across the DB2 family" strange "family" that changes form z/OS DB2 to Java "universal driver" like lightening, depending on what interpretation is given... Like I said before: "everything everywhere". what is important is to claim it, not to be correct. Isn't it? :) and the quote is from an article that reads in the VERY FIRST paragraph: "Version 8 of the IBM DB2 Universal Database for z/OS represents the " Not bad for "clearly talking about the same code base for DB2 for Linux, ". Of course. It's all the same everywhere, isn't it? Definitely enjoying to get it rubbed on your faces.... Can't you just see that it is PLAINLY indefensible, TOTALLY RIDICULOUS and DEMEANING to even pretend that it is anything else but a sham? Do you really want more ACTUAL quotes from IBM's OWN web sites and articles? There are only 430000 of them to go, you know? We could be here a looong time... -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
> Definitely enjoying to get it rubbed on your faces.... > Can't you just see that it is PLAINLY indefensible, TOTALLY RIDICULOUS > and DEMEANING to even pretend that it is anything else but a sham? > > Do you really want more ACTUAL quotes from IBM's OWN web sites and > articles? There are only 430000 of them to go, you know? > We could be here a looong time... > > -- > Cheers > Nuno Souto You have been proven wrong in your assertion. None of the quotes are as you say they are. Making up stuff and misquoting is not a defensible position. Time for you to issue another retraction.
Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 10:39 PM: > > You have been proven wrong in your assertion. What, by your deranged ramblings? > None of the quotes are as you > say they are. ALL the quotes are EXACTLY as I said they are: they are EXACT copies of what is in IBM's site. Yours are just interpretations from your fertile imagination. > Making up stuff and misquoting is not a defensible position. Precisely. Ready to retire now? > Time for you to issue another retraction. Why should I do what you need to do? -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam