Re: database market share 2003

Serge Rielau wrote: > You mean this: > http://www-1.ibm.com/industries/financialservices/doc/content/component/software/270311103.html > > "* Multiple operating systems, running on IBM and non-IBM hardware > * A single code base to deliver a consistent set of functionality > from small single CPU systems, to SMP, to clusters of either" > > That statement is correct. > > One can pick on the fact that the author didn't fully qualify "DB2 UDB" > to "DB2 UDB for Linux Unix and Windows".' > > Cheers > Serge Lets take this one step at a time since you want to approach this like an attorney ... First ... you now acknowledge that IBM did, in fact, write the phrase "single code base". Second ... this issue is not the phrase itself, but rather how it is to be interpreted. Third ... it is not what was explicitly said ... but rather what was not said upon which you are making the distinction. Not every fine slip is malicious? How about every slippery interpretation? Seems to me the ethical thing to do would be just to acknowledge that IBM said it and it is pure marketing hyperbole without basis in fact. Then we can all get back to postings about things of import such as Pink Floyd vs. Bach. -- Daniel Morgan damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Daniel Morgan wrote: > > Then we can all get back to postings about things of import such as > Pink Floyd vs. Bach. Couldn't we just do this anyway? Don't you all know the second law of Usenet? Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded. I'm waiting to see who's going to be the first to lose the argument according to Godwin's Law (first law of Usenet). Take it offline or meet for a macho-cafe-latte-decaf-muggachino in a Starbucks somewhere, so you can sort out this vital issue once and for all. Is c.d.i destined to become a desolate wasteland of pointless arguments and whingers pining for the good old days?

Andrew Hamm wrote (in part): > Is c.d.i destined to become a desolate wasteland of pointless arguments and > whingers pining for the good old days? > I am not pining for IBM IMS/DB and CICS, or IBM IMS/DB and IMS/DC. Is anyone? I did get stuck on a project where we were required to use IBM IMS/DB and /DC and had to write the censored thing in IBM Basic Assembler Language ("for efficiency reasons"). They had 70 programmers on that for about 4 years before the project was scrapped. It may have been efficient, but since it solved the wrong problem, it was no use to anyone. I argued in favor of using a higher level language, but was shouted down. With a higher level language, we could have realized we were solving the wrong problem a lot sooner. The good old days! Bah! -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 22:15:00 up 3 days, 7:40, 8 users, load average: 2.20, 2.19, 2.12

Daniel, Let me assert to you that all the code I have written in all my 7 years for IBM DB2 UDB for Linux, Unix and Windows is single code-base and that single codebase scales from small single CPU systems (like my laptop), to SMP (like my development server), to clusters of either (like my development server cluster of a dozen machines) and across multiple operating systems (like Linux, Windows, Sun OS, HP, AIX) and hardware platforms (e.g x (linux, Windows), p (Linux and AIX), z (Linux) and i(Linux) Series, HP and Sun). IBM DB2 UDB for Linux, Unix and Windows has a special layer called OSS which deals with platform specific optimizations and APIs. Depending whom you ask this isolated layer is between 5%-10% of the codebase. Given that I touch IBM DB2 UDB for Linux, Unix and Windows code 340 days a year for 7 years now I happen to know what I am talking about and you do not. If you believe that any given company is doing misleading or false marketing then there are laws in many countries governing this which you can invoke. However, there is no doubt that any single phrase one picks out of any document or source can and will be taken out of context. It is a base fact in life that this happens and anyone who ever played "Telephone" ("Stille Post" in my days) knows it's true. It results in equally smart and objective people comming to widely different conclusions. Nothing to be concerned about. And, let's face it, opinions may vary. I can take a lot of pokes about DB2 and more often than not there are grains of truth in them (like wouldn't it be nice if all DB2 extenders were supported on all platforms, as Mark T. likes to rub in ever so gently). What upsets me about your posts in particluar is that you seemingly purposely take things out of context and twist them around, you get corrected over and over and over again and yet you refuse to admit erratas. And that's where freedom of speech and healthy debate veers of into slander. What I can't get is, how you don't seem to realize that you not only loose reputation in non Oracle newsgroups (you may not care), but also within your "home" Oracle group. Any of your students, employers, customers and peers can google for these posts. Don't you care? Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

"Andrew Hamm" <ahamm@mail.com> wrote in message news:2ish4qFqgp4iU1@uni-berlin.de... > Is c.d.i destined to become a desolate wasteland of pointless arguments and > whingers pining for the good old days? Did you answer your own question there ...?

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1086913318.264053@yasure... > > Then we can all get back to postings about things of import such as > Pink Floyd vs. Bach. I'm a Mozart fan myself... ;-) > > -- > Daniel Morgan > damorgan@x.washington.edu > (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply) >

"Andrew Hamm" <ahamm@mail.com> wrote in message news:2ish4qFqgp4iU1@uni-berlin.de... > Is c.d.i destined to become a desolate wasteland of pointless arguments and > whingers pining for the good old days? > To answer your question, yes. But unfortunately a good place to debate **anything** is hard to find. What you believe is certainly worth challenging, especially in public, such as what database is right, or wrong, etc., etc., etc. and usenet is valuable for people if for nothing more the opportunity to communicate and share ideas. Historically from what I've seen Andrew, FWIW you've wanted to run c.d.i. into what you think is important, constantly trying to engineer a social conscience that fits your agenda and curry favor with the old guard. That's ok, be honest enough to admit it. It doesn't make you a bad person per se, as if my opinion matters, it just makes you Andrew, and the clown da bomb. ;-) As you whine on about the whiners we don't get anything new out of you, and that my friend cuts into the sheer entertainment value you would otherwise be bringing to the table. Cursory attempts to shut people down are a complete waste of your energy, and your time in usenet. Here in the theatre of the mind there is no fun in being shut out, but I'll agree with your assertion that arguing on Usenet is pointless. Go with the force my friend, jump into the river and follow the current, even if none of it matters. As far as c.d.i. the sad truth is, this newsgroup lives on for a lot more 'former' Informix people than the 'current' user crowd. To be fair about your question, yes, there is a lot of senseless, annoying banter, whining, johnny-come-lately-anger, pontificating, and just plain useless nonsense. But over the years it has always been this way. Every attempt to change it has failed, you are better off helping people to stay as dysfunctional, and niche as possible if for nothing else the sheer entertainment value, and cathartic charm that no-one in 100 years will care about. Always remember to post after at least a pint. ( Or in David's case after a serious session with his pipe ) Now, drink your drink, and get back to the discussion ( whatever it was I can't remember ).

Serge Rielau wrote: > Daniel, > > Let me assert to you that all the code I have written in all my 7 years > for IBM DB2 UDB for Linux, Unix and Windows is single code-base and that > single codebase scales from small single CPU systems (like my laptop), > to SMP (like my development server), to clusters of either (like my > development server cluster of a dozen machines) and across multiple > operating systems (like Linux, Windows, Sun OS, HP, AIX) and hardware > platforms (e.g x (linux, Windows), p (Linux and AIX), z (Linux) and > i(Linux) Series, HP and Sun). > IBM DB2 UDB for Linux, Unix and Windows has a special layer called OSS > which deals with platform specific optimizations and APIs. Depending > whom you ask this isolated layer is between 5%-10% of the codebase. > > Serge And please let me asset to you that code I have written in my 35+ years, many of which were IBM DB2 on mainframes ... that code could not be moved, without modification, to a Windows or other platform. Even basic things like how many characters long is the name of a table would/could change. Is that no longer true? I find it hard to believe that anyone would assert that DB2 on OS/390 where it is shared-everything can be put onto a different operating system where the DB2 architecture is shared-nothing and think it will run as is. Please tell me if I am incorrect. You see the one nice thing about some of DB2's competitors is that the code written is 100% compatible across operating systems ... not even requiring a recompilation. -- 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" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1086927557.861975@yasure... > And please let me asset to you that code I have written in my 35+ years, > many of which were IBM DB2 on mainframes ... that code could not be > moved, without modification, to a Windows or other platform. Even > basic things like how many characters long is the name of a table > would/could change. > > Is that no longer true? > > I find it hard to believe that anyone would assert that DB2 on OS/390 > where it is shared-everything can be put onto a different operating > system where the DB2 architecture is shared-nothing and think it will > run as is. Please tell me if I am incorrect. > > You see the one nice thing about some of DB2's competitors is that > the code written is 100% compatible across operating systems ... not > even requiring a recompilation. > > -- > Daniel Morgan No, that is not true. The OS/390 (MVS or whatever) COBOL compiler you might have used with Oracle on OS/390 is not compatible with any Windows, Linux, or UNIX COBOL compiler (assuming you even wanted to use COBOL on those platforms). Initially, there were many incompatibilities between DB2 on OS/2 (the predecessor of DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows). Those differences at the DML level are very few now (especially with the release of DB2 version 8 for z/OS). The reason that Oracle uses the same code base for all platforms has nothing to do with portability, it has to do getting a product out the door with a few changes as possible to work on a particular OS. The fact that Oracle on does not work very well on OS/390 is a testament to the fact that such a strategy is mostly a marketing one, and did not produce excellent products that customers want (at least not on OS/390). The portability issue is mostly a red herring. Microsoft SQL Server is selling quite well even though it only runs on Windows. On the platforms that DB2 competes vigorously with Oracle (Linux, UNIX, and Windows) the DB2 code base is identical on all those platforms.

Mark A wrote: > "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message > news:1086927557.861975@yasure... > >>And please let me asset to you that code I have written in my 35+ years, >>many of which were IBM DB2 on mainframes ... that code could not be >>moved, without modification, to a Windows or other platform. Even >>basic things like how many characters long is the name of a table >>would/could change. >> >>Is that no longer true? >> >>I find it hard to believe that anyone would assert that DB2 on OS/390 >>where it is shared-everything can be put onto a different operating >>system where the DB2 architecture is shared-nothing and think it will >>run as is. Please tell me if I am incorrect. >> >>You see the one nice thing about some of DB2's competitors is that >>the code written is 100% compatible across operating systems ... not >>even requiring a recompilation. >> >>-- >>Daniel Morgan > > > No, that is not true. The OS/390 (MVS or whatever) COBOL compiler you might > have used with Oracle on OS/390 is not compatible with any Windows, Linux, > or UNIX COBOL compiler (assuming you even wanted to use COBOL on those > platforms). > > Initially, there were many incompatibilities between DB2 on OS/2 (the > predecessor of DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows). Those differences at the > DML level are very few now (especially with the release of DB2 version 8 for > z/OS). > > The reason that Oracle uses the same code base for all platforms has nothing > to do with portability, it has to do getting a product out the door with a > few changes as possible to work on a particular OS. The fact that Oracle on > does not work very well on OS/390 is a testament to the fact that such a > strategy is mostly a marketing one, and did not produce excellent products > that customers want (at least not on OS/390). > > The portability issue is mostly a red herring. Microsoft SQL Server is > selling quite well even though it only runs on Windows. On the platforms > that DB2 competes vigorously with Oracle (Linux, UNIX, and Windows) the DB2 > code base is identical on all those platforms. Thanks for the clarification. The reason Oracle doesn't concentrate on OS/390, if that is the case, might also relate to the difficulty of selling into a marketshare very carefully managed by IBM. I know that was the case when I last worked on that class of machine. -- 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" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1086929808.312585@yasure... > > Thanks for the clarification. > > The reason Oracle doesn't concentrate on OS/390, if that is the case, > might also relate to the difficulty of selling into a marketshare very > carefully managed by IBM. I know that was the case when I last worked > on that class of machine. > > -- > Daniel Morgan You make it sound like IBM has the power of the mafia. I don't think so. 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.

Jean-David Beyer wrote: >> > I am not pining for IBM IMS/DB and CICS, or IBM IMS/DB and IMS/DC. > Is anyone? hmmm - i also forgot to allow for the cross-posting. I'm talking about the steady stream of nay-sayers that are still having panic attacks after the IBM takeover of Informix. Although I agree that IBM is a major player in the IT Axis of Evil, I also believe that IBM is the bestest thing that could have happened to Informix, apart, perhaps, from Informix itself keeping it's shit together over the last few years instead of being abused by corporate raiders etc. Some people are still remembering the Alamo a little too much.

Captain Pedantic wrote: > "Andrew Hamm" <ahamm@mail.com> wrote in message > news:2ish4qFqgp4iU1@uni-berlin.de... > >> Is c.d.i destined to become a desolate wasteland of pointless >> arguments and whingers pining for the good old days? > > > Did you answer your own question there ...? Never let irony stand in the way of a good story.

Data Goob wrote: > > Historically from what I've seen Andrew, FWIW you've wanted to run > c.d.i. into what you think is important, constantly trying to engineer > a social conscience that fits your agenda and curry favor with the old > guard. That's ok, be honest enough to admit it. I admit to trying to throw in a bit of grace and tolerance occasionally, if that's an agenda. Otherwise, my 'agena' for c.d.i would be that it is a comfortable place for people to share ideas, advice, experiences and good times. Angry abusive newsgroups usually turn people away. I think most people would agree, but feel free to flame me if you believe that this newsgroup should be a haven for flamin' idiots. It shouldn't take more than a few months in newsgroups and mailing lists to realise that the anonymity of it all is no excuse for turning the internet into a lost chapter from Lord Of The Flies. > It doesn't make you > a bad person per se, as if my opinion matters, it just makes you > Andrew, and the clown da bomb. ;-) Why thankyou > As you whine on about the > whiners we don't get anything new out of you, and that my friend cuts > into the sheer entertainment value you would otherwise be bringing to > the table. Sorry I haven't been able to entertain and inform nearly as much as I used to, but other projects currently fill my time, unlike the larger amount of idle time I used to have. I'd be posting even less if it wasn't for occasional slaps I choose to dole out ;-) > Cursory attempts to shut people down are a complete waste > of your energy, and your time in usenet. Here in the theatre of the > mind there is no fun in being shut out, but I'll agree with your > assertion that arguing on Usenet is pointless. Go with the force my > friend, jump into the river and follow the current, even if none of > it matters. I don't think I've ever tried to shut people down, just to remind them of the more adult, tolerant and thoughtful sides of their personality. Hopefully people would have the self-esteem to be able to look at themselves and realise that occasionally they step over the line and need to ease up. I never hate these people unless they have been chronic offenders. In fact, some chronic offenders have turned me away from some otherwise valuable groups, and that's the sad lesson I'm acting upon. > As far as c.d.i. the sad truth is, this newsgroup lives on for a lot > more 'former' Informix people than the 'current' user crowd. To be > fair about your question, yes, there is a lot of senseless, annoying > banter, whining, johnny-come-lately-anger, pontificating, and just > plain useless nonsense. But over the years it has always been this > way. Every attempt to change it has failed, Ohh, I don't know. I think people in here (far more than myself) have influenced each other to be nicer to each other. I think reasonable adults can better themselves and the groups they choose to spend their time. > you are better off helping people to stay as dysfunctional, Helping this? Does anyone need help to STAY disfunctional? Unlikely. > Now, drink your drink, and get back to the discussion ( whatever it > was I can't remember ). When I get some breathing room, and see more interesting questions or points-of-view. But personally, I'm sick of the my-databases-dick-is-bigger-than-yours discussions, and also the whiney "Boo Hoo Hoo IBM boo hoo hoo" threads. Is that an agenda? Guilty as charged then.

> > 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. > Oracle for OS/390 was more widely used 5-10 years ago when we saw a lot of migration of applications from mainframes to open system platforms - typically deployed as an aid to migration supporting parallel testing/development etc. They tended to get "switched off" once the migration was complete. Some OS/390 customers also used Oracle on the mainframe as an "in memory" gateway to their DB2 data for their downstream systems etc. In some situations the performance of Oracle (Unix) <-> Oracle (OS/390) <-> TG4DB2 (OS/390) <-> DB2 could be better configured than Oracle (Unix) <-> TG4DB2 (OS/390) <-> DB2 (OS/390) (better control of the join shipping, for one). So it's entirely possible that companies have simply stopped using Oracle OS/390, or only use it as an aid to striping data from the MF environment. Let me know who the references were and I'll make sure we stop giving them out.

> The OS/390 (MVS or whatever) COBOL compiler you might > have used with Oracle on OS/390 is not compatible with any Windows, Linux, > or UNIX COBOL compiler (assuming you even wanted to use COBOL on those > platforms). I seem to remember (from faded memory) that Microfocus had a compiler that was (reasonably) compatible. Or was that just to the OS/2 ? I know we moved a swag of Cobol FinServs apps onto HP a decade ago without significant rewrite. Is microfocs even around anymore - CA-Microfocus ?

> > The OS/390 (MVS or whatever) COBOL compiler you might > > have used with Oracle on OS/390 is not compatible with any Windows, Linux, > > or UNIX COBOL compiler (assuming you even wanted to use COBOL on those > > platforms). > "Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend@comcast.net> wrote in message news:HIbyc.26081$HG.7386@attbi_s53... > I seem to remember (from faded memory) that Microfocus had a compiler > that was (reasonably) compatible. Or was that just to the OS/2 ? I know > we moved a swag of Cobol FinServs apps onto HP a decade ago without > significant rewrite. Is microfocs even around anymore - CA-Microfocus ? > Yes MicroFocus is still around, and it was reasonably compatible. But Danny boy only allows 100% compatibility for DB2, so applying the same standard, MicroFocus was not 100% compatible with mainframe COBOL.

Andrew Hamm wrote: > > Sorry I haven't been able to entertain and inform nearly as much as > I used to More to the point, in the limited time available, when I run the newsreader and see dozens of postings on threads that should have died days ago, I just reach for the little [x] button and click...