Re: database market share 2003

"Mark A" <ma_at_switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<cqbuc.168$%l.121945_at_news.uswest.net>...
> "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.

forgot about this thread. ad homonym attacks don't answer the question: is DB2 number skewed by its monopoly on the MF (the acronym has various translations).

all my love,
robert Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 15:04:35 CDT