Re: No future for DB2

Noons wrote: > Anton Versteeg wrote: > >>No since Oracle has zip marketshare on the mainframe, >>my statement is true, but to please you I will rephrase it to: >>DB2 is the only product that has proven it runs on the mainframe, >>midrange and PC and also sunstantial market share. > > > Using EXACTLY the same argument as you then: > I have NEVER come across DB2 on the PC. So, > it doesn't run on the PC, period. > Howzzat-den for argument? In 10 years there will be far fewer mainframes. In 10 years there will be far more PCs I think your argument carries more weight. And, BTW, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group runs Oracle on mainframes. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > Noons wrote: > >> Anton Versteeg wrote: >> >>> No since Oracle has zip marketshare on the mainframe, >>> my statement is true, but to please you I will rephrase it to: >>> DB2 is the only product that has proven it runs on the mainframe, >>> midrange and PC and also sunstantial market share. >> >> >> >> Using EXACTLY the same argument as you then: >> I have NEVER come across DB2 on the PC. So, >> it doesn't run on the PC, period. >> Howzzat-den for argument? > > > In 10 years there will be far fewer mainframes. > In 10 years there will be far more PCs > I think your argument carries more weight. > > And, BTW, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group runs Oracle > on mainframes. In 10 years there will be a lot more XQuery. I fear who reigns RDBMS in 10-15 years is as interesting as IMS marketshare. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau wrote: > In 10 years there will be a lot more XQuery. > I fear who reigns RDBMS in 10-15 years is as interesting as IMS > marketshare. > > Cheers > Serge I don't think so. XQuery will not stand the test of time any more than storying XML in the database will. XML was developed for a purpose. Storing it and querying it makes no sense, wastes resources, and is highly inefficient. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: >XML was developed for a >purpose. Storing it and querying it makes no >sense, wastes resources, >and is highly inefficient. Thank you Daniel, I thought either my current project had driven me insane or I had gone too soft in the head to understand these newfangled concepts. But, the Customer's Dollars are Always Right! Art S. Kagel wrote: [comments about what IBM will do with IDS] This sounds quite a bit like what Oracle did with the Rdb intellectual property. It took a number of years and a couple of versions, but eventually a lot migrated to Oracle and into new patents, while Rdb provided a typical mature product cash flow. Must still be one of the best $100M Larry ever spent. jg -- @home.com is bogus. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/777676/000119758805000020/primary_doc.xml

DA Morgan wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: > >> In 10 years there will be a lot more XQuery. >> I fear who reigns RDBMS in 10-15 years is as interesting as IMS >> marketshare. > I don't think so. XQuery will not stand the test of time any more > than storying XML in the database will. XML was developed for a > purpose. Storing it and querying it makes no sense, wastes resources, > and is highly inefficient. *lol* Apparently Mark T. (speak up man!)and his opponents at MS and IBM disagree. There isn't one major DBMS that hasn't realized that XQuery is a must have. Oracle 10gR2 has it, SQL Server 2005 has it, Viper has it. The hierarchical DBMS of the world will stick around The RDBMS will stick around and this new breed of DBMS will find their place. All that is part of Information Management. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau wrote: > In 10 years there will be a lot more XQuery. > I fear who reigns RDBMS in 10-15 years is as interesting as IMS marketshare. Good point. Yet: XML, how deranged is that? Store your metadata with your data and send it out for every single instance of data. Over and over again. "100Mrows? No problem, sir: we'll send you the metadata for every column of those rows 100Mtimes." <pause/> "hello IBM? Can I buy some more disk?" Reminds me of the "to-be-sure-to-be-sure" old Irish gag. What a sad joke IT has turned into...

Serge Rielau wrote: > There isn't one major DBMS that hasn't realized that XQuery is a must > have. Oracle 10gR2 has it, SQL Server 2005 has it, Viper has it. "must have" != "used", Serge. > The hierarchical DBMS of the world will stick around > The RDBMS will stick around > and this new breed of DBMS will find their place. > All that is part of Information Management. You're right, of course. Except for the volumes.

Noons wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: > >>There isn't one major DBMS that hasn't realized that XQuery is a must >>have. Oracle 10gR2 has it, SQL Server 2005 has it, Viper has it. > "must have" != "used", Serge. True enough. time will tell.. >>The hierarchical DBMS of the world will stick around >>The RDBMS will stick around >>and this new breed of DBMS will find their place. >>All that is part of Information Management. > You're right, of course. Except for the volumes. Again, time will tell. Being a relation person myself I'm not speaking what I wish to become true, I speak of what I fear to become true. I do see ISVs which handle all their (fat) client side work in XML and XQuery and all the DBMS does is store the shredded data. Ironically this is quite similar to what the research DBMS (KRISYS) I worked on at University did. These ISVs save a lot of complexity by not having to shred and rebuild the documents. IMHO in the early days of IT (when I was playing in the dirt...) the database ruled and the apps were made to fit. Nowadays the trend is that the app rules and the DBMS is made to fit. T'is what I see anyways... Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau wrote: > > IMHO in the early days of IT (when I was playing in the dirt...) the > database ruled and the apps were made to fit. Nowadays the trend is that > the app rules and the DBMS is made to fit. > T'is what I see anyways... Sure. But there is still a very clear limit: going back to the volumes bit I mentioned above. Those of us who still have to process serious amounts of data in as little time as possible are still using good old C/C++, shell scripts, perl here and there and maybe in a moment of light-headed enthusiasm, python/php. (Now, THOSE are interesting languages!) Because very clearly Java, J2EE and XML technologies haven't got a SINGLE chance in heck of ever coping with serious volumes and STILL remain cost-effective. And that has been made painfully clear to me beyond any doubt: nowadays that I have to cope again with seriously large data volumes instead of the total JOKE of Java "apps" I've had to deal with for the last 4 years. (before the usual band of demented CRETINS jumps in with the "internet shopping carts" and the "12-table schemas": I don't give a CRACK about any of that! I'm talking about serious volumes of data processing, with SENSIBLY priced hardware. Get lost. Not interested. You're a waste of time and space. Capice?) Agree with you: IMS, RDBMS and XQuery will all find the appropriate niches. But when it comes to speed, IMS will reign supreme. When it comes to volume, RDBMS will eat everything else for breakfast. And somewhere in between the cracks will be the shopping carts sending their schema meta-data all over the place with a little bit of data interspersed here and there. Of course: time will tell. Well, at least I intend to be listening! ;)