Re: database market share 2003
Not a technical support thread but an argument over 2003 database market-share figures. The dispute: whether IBM should be allowed to count every AS/400 installation as a DB2 site, since DB2 is bundled with the OS/400 platform and many AS/400 shops run legacy RPG applications without deliberately buying or using DB2. Counter-argument raised that Oracle and Microsoft similarly benefit from counting all Unix/Windows deployments. Participants also disagreed over whether cross-platform products can fairly be compared with Windows-only SQL Server. The exchange became personal and ended without agreement or any resolution.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 2/06/2004 2:18 AM: > Here we go again. Yes. for as long as those cretin claims continue... > Has Oracle stopped counting UNIX or has Microsoft stopped counting Windows? Why should they? -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
For the same reason that you want IBM to stop counting DB2 on AS/400. Larry Noons wrote: > Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 2/06/2004 2:18 AM: > >> Here we go again. > > > Yes. for as long as those cretin claims continue... > >> Has Oracle stopped counting UNIX or has Microsoft stopped counting >> Windows? > > > Why should they? >
Larry wrote: > For the same reason that you want IBM to stop counting DB2 on AS/400. > > Larry > > Noons wrote: >> Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 2/06/2004 2:18 AM: >> >>> Here we go again. >> >> >> Yes. for as long as those cretin claims continue... >> >>> Has Oracle stopped counting UNIX or has Microsoft stopped counting >>> Windows? >> >> >> Why should they? >> I think Noons' point is that it's unfair to compare Oracle (Linux, Unix, Windows) against DB2 (Linux, Unix, Windows, AS/400) since the domains are different. Larry wonders why it's fair, using the same logic, to compare Oracle (Linux, Unix, Windows) against MS SQL Server (Windows) since the domains are different. Of course, neither one makes sense. While some companies do constrain their spending to certain platforms (all-MS shop running Windows, all-HP, all-Sun, all-IBM, etc.), I would think that most database-using shops are simply trying to store and retrieve data. As long as that works, the platform in use is only of as much interest as their budget allows (i.e., a budget of $20,000 isn't going to get an AS/400!). If they go out and purchase some hardware running DB2, or Oracle, or SQL Server, that's what they bought. So it counts for that product. Noons' second point is that all AS/400 users are counted as DB2 customers whether they use it or not. Sorta like all Windows users are counted as IE users, for example. However, what Noons has not proven, or even attempted to demonstrate, is that this is a significant distortion of the reality. Fact is that they did buy DB2, although reality may be that they didn't want to. But is that a significant portion of the AS/400 market as to render it misleading?
Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 3/06/2004 9:57 AM: > For the same reason that you want IBM to stop counting DB2 on AS/400. You wouldn't be smart enough to fathom the difference... -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
Darin McBride allegedly said,on my timestamp of 3/06/2004 10:18 AM: > I think Noons' point is that it's unfair to compare Oracle (Linux, > Unix, Windows) against DB2 (Linux, Unix, Windows, AS/400) since the > domains are different. Nope. > Larry wonders why it's fair, using the same logic, to compare Oracle > (Linux, Unix, Windows) against MS SQL Server (Windows) since the > domains are different. Nope. > all-HP, all-Sun, all-IBM, etc.), I would think that most database-using > shops are simply trying to store and retrieve data. As long as that > works, the platform in use is only of as much interest as their budget > allows (i.e., a budget of $20,000 isn't going to get an AS/400!). So, if you are using a AS400 to run RPG applications inherited from your 20 year old System 36, WTF is IBM counting THAT as a DB2 license? > If they go out and purchase some hardware running DB2, or Oracle, or > SQL Server, that's what they bought. So it counts for that product. Sure. the problem is that IBM is counting ALL (let me see if you can grasp the difference: I said ALL, it means THE TOTALITY OF) AS400 sites as DB2 sites. Which they are NOT, NEVER were and NEVER will be. > counted as IE users, for example. However, what Noons has not proven, > or even attempted to demonstrate, is that this is a significant > distortion of the reality. Fact is that they did buy DB2, although > reality may be that they didn't want to. But is that a significant > portion of the AS/400 market as to render it misleading? Yes. ALL AS400 sites IS a "significant portion of the AS400 market", in case you have not noticed? -- Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam