Re: IBM DB2 serious alternative to Oracle/Informix?

Michael Ruminer wrote:
>
> jbrock_at_panix.com (John Brock) wrote:
>
> >In article <33BBEC44.692F2A8A_at_mindspring.com>,
> >Tim Schaefer <tschaefe_at_mindspring.com> wrote:
>

Not to nitpick, but I didn't write this. I generally have plenty of other posts I'll admit to. :-)

> >If IBM -- which controls the mainframe DB market but doesn't have much
> >of a foothold in the client/server world -- were really interested in
> >swaying non-DB2 people to DB2, their best bet might be to try to buy
> >market share, by selling what is generally acknowledged as a world
> >class database engine at fire sale prices. Hey! According to the
> >original poster, that's exactly what they're doing! If DB2 on Unix and
> >NT really does have a 10 to 1 price advantage over Oracle and Informix
> >(can that possibly be right???) it strikes me as a *much* stronger
> >incentive than a well coordinated color scheme.
> >--
> >John Brock
> >jbrock_at_panix.com
>
> The above is exactly why I had my company buy DB2. You can get a
> world class Database for UNIX at a fraction of the cost that I would
> have ever expected.
>
> Data isn't pretty. If an interface is needed - I'll build it. I
> just want an engine to store and query and retrive the data. I'll
> control it's interface.
>

Yours is the same kind of argument we could hear from application folk: "Who needs DBAs.". So, depending on where you're standing your perception seems to be the driving motivation for a good user interface or not-so-good user interface.

Keep in mind we obviously do not live in the same world of even 2 yrs ago. The data processing industry is about to see an increase of data bases in general, and certainly more data to be dealt with. The sizes of corporate data bases are not getting smaller.

Microsoft is rolling out their Transaction Server, which promises to be a transaction/ORB server for the masses. Given the capability to manage a _truely_ distributed application, and data base, this product could bring the concepts of the future at hand. You can imagine an application which could use a virtual data base of hundreds of data bases, apps and servers distributed physically across a network.

A management interface that is easy, intuitive and best of breed will certainly win out. It will provide a company with a lower cost per data base. I can imagine this will not diminish the need for good SQL skills and of course skills in managing the engine. Transaction Server is in its' infancy, but like all MS products it appears out of nowhere and is suddenly something we have to deal with. It could just as easily disappear, but other products will be taking advantage of it, so I dare say it will be with us. NT 5.0 will be too.

> I'm looking forward to using the product. An excellent product at an
> unbelievable price. That is truly incentive.
>
> Michael Ruminer

I encourage you to at least learn about Transaction Server, and see the hurricane that is about to hit. My real concern is if this product will work with other data base products besides SQLServer.

Hopefully your favorite data base vendor will be preparing for Transaction Server. As much as I detest MS products, they are a formidal force to deal with. On the other side of the fence lies CORBA and IIOP, but unless these build momentum faster, we all know where things will go.

As always, it's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

:-)

You might also check out Informix's OnLine WorkGroup Server, which has a really nice interface, and delight to use compared to others I've had to use lately.

:-)  

-- 
Tim Schaefer              \\|//               
tschaefe_at_mindspring.com    6 6               
--------------------oOOo---( )---o00o---------
http://www.inxutil.com      
==============================================