"robert" <gnuoytr_at_rcn.com> wrote in message
news:da3c2186.0405291715.5e4125bd_at_posting.google.com...
> what i've not seen is the other side of this coin: that (perhaps)
> IBM's share is skewed (looks larger than it really is) by the
> fact that it pretty much owns the mainframe. a relative handful
> of very expensive installs. in other words, i question how relevant
> DB2 is to the future of relational databases. IBM needs to
> demonstrate that it is relevant outside of conversions (i use
> the term very, very loosely) of behemouth COBOL/VSAM systems. at
> my work, they just defined tables from the copybooks. i
> gather this is quite common.
>
> robert
Since DB2 mainframe has been around since the mid-1980's, that is
ridiculous. The overwhelming majority or DB2 OS/390 applications were
designed on DB2 from scratch. Your company may be an exception, and somewhat
backward. After all, they employ you, so it must be a really screwed up
company.
Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 21:12:41 CDT
