Don't know where you're getting this information, but it's not accurate
for DB2. Perhaps it is referring to mainframe hw ... not sure. But DB2
continues to grow on the mainframe every year.
Larry Edelstein
robert wrote:
> Larry <Larry_at_nospam.net> wrote in message news:<pAcuc.64$DC1.81837_at_news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
>>And why wouldn't Oracle's results be skewed by it's heritage on UNIX,
>>and Microsoft's be skewed by its heritage on Windows? What does that
>>prove? As long as you are growing on the relevant platforms (which IBM
>>is), and as long as you maintain a significant overall market share ...
>>that proves that you are going to be around as a company and more
>>importantly, as a database company for the foreseeable future. This is
>>what's most important about market share. Otherwise, I don't understand
>>your point. It's like saying that because Nabisco has a higher overall
>>market share in the cookie market ... and that this is skewed by them
>>having the leading market share in Oreo sandwich cookies, you won't buy
>>Keebler cookies.
>>
>>Larry Edelstein
>>
>>robert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"rkusenet" <rkusenet_at_sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<2hmh03Fdir3uU1_at_uni-berlin.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040526/tech_database_marketshare_1.html
>>>>
>>>>Interesting to see that database sales for windows is more than
>>>>Unix.
>>>
>>>
>>>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
>
>
> growing??? there was a news report a couple of days ago that IBM's
> MF business was about $3 (or $4) billion annually. and that 10 years
> ago it was $12 billion. i didn't attempt to verify this, of course.
> anyone is welcome to do so. but, on the face of it, DB2/MF is NOT the
> future.
>
> robert
Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 16:44:20 CDT
