Re: database market share 2003

"Mark A" <ma_at_switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<c9vuc.76$XJ.51654_at_news.uswest.net>...
> > You can't call the fact that I, personally, have never run into
> > DB2 on Windows nonsense. And you sure can't dig your way out of it
> > by making reference to HP and Sun hardware unless you are somehow
> > equating Solaris with a Microsoft product.
> >
> > So I'll try the statement again ... I ... that means mean personally, in
> > 35 years in this industry ... seen DB2 on Windows in any organization
> > that didn't have DB2 also on another IBM platform such as a mainframe
> > or AS400.
> >
> > I can not be wrong about my personal experience.
> >
> > If you wish to prove that my personal experience is somehow skewed and
> > not representative of the database market as a whole ... then here's
> > how you can do it.
> >
> > Publish official numbers showing the number of DB2 licenses, on MS
> > Windows, that are in companies that are not also using DB2 on mainframes
> > or AS400. Simple.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Morgan
>
> I didn't say anything about your "personal experience." I just said your
> comments are nonsense. If you prefer: "your [limited] experience is
> non-sense."
>
>
> I have seen many DB2 installations on Windows. Since you live in Washington
> state, where there is an extreme MS bias, most companies use MS SQL Server
> on Windows. That combination is strong, but not quite as dominant in other
> parts of the country.
>
>
>
> Excluding all companies that also run DB2 on OS/390 and AS/400 is quite
> restrictive. I believe that are over 2000 companies who use DB2 on IBM
> mainframes. The number of companies that run AS/400 (or I series) is in the
> tens of thousands, and DB2 comes with the OS.
>
>
>
> So you seem to be excluding a huge percentage of the largest 5000 companies
> in the US (most of whom have at least one IBM mainframe running DB2 or an
> AS/400 which comes with DB2).
>
>
>
> So your comments are ridiculous (again). Double-talk. Non-Sense.

so far as i know, oracle is oracle is oracle, no matter the platform. not so for DB2:

1. System 3X, had an un-named 'integrated database'. S36/8, IIRC. this may have been before...
2. System R the research implementation of Dr. Codd's paper
3. S38 morphed to AS/400 (Advanced System 400, get it?) which eventually identified the db as DB/400
4. DB2 MF, from System R
5. DB/400 became DB2 for AS/400...
6. which became just DB2
7. DB2 for AIX....
8. which became DB2/UDB (after adding NT?)

these are 3 different code bases, still not fully compatible at the DML level, much less DDL. is anyone at IBM willing to assert that they are now from 1 code base? Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 17:36:35 CDT