Re: database market share 2003

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message news:<cac24q$6mn$1@news.xmission.com>... > Daniel Morgan said: > > > 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. > > Jesus, Daniel, why don't you blame IBM for the ebola virus as well, while > you're at it? > > I'd like to point out that companies like Compuware, BMC and Computer > Associates do exceptionally well in the "carefully managed" IBM mainframe > market. Could it possibly be that either Oracle doesn't grok the mainframe > market or sees it as different to core business and so doesn't work as > hard on it? Or maybe something else? Does it *have* to be nasty IBM's Maybe it's because the founders of all those companies used to work for IBM? http://www.compuware.com/corporate/793_ENG_HTML.htm http://www.bmc.com/BMC/Common/CDA/hou_Page_Generic/0,3465,8028426_8128252,00.html http://www.ca.com/about/history.htm > fault that Oracle doesn't have big marketshare in the mainframe database > as well? Is it not remotely possible that Oracle cannot or will not commit > to the market? Have you considered that it could be entirely or largely > Oracle's own responsibility to try and compete in a given market. Yes, it could very well be Larry doesn't see competing directly on the platform as a growth market, versus growing competing platforms. > > Sure, IBM does stuff we don't agree with. So does every other company that > walks the earth. Get over it. We can make a difference, sometimes with as little as letting them know it is an issue. Other times by letting the gummint have it's way with them. jg -- @home.com is bogus. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040611/news_1n11offshore.html