Re: database market share 2003

Larry <Larry_at_nospam.net> wrote in message news:<VlKwc.11078$c76.6922147_at_news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...

> You continue to demonstrate your biases and your pure opinionated
> non-logic that is frankly extremely short-sighted and dismisses anything
> but your own twisted reasoning.

Get lost. You don't have the FOGGIEST what my motivations are, what "biases" I have or ANYTHING about me, for that matter.

> It has already been stated that the DB2 codebase is exactly the same
> across the Intel/AMD/UNIX platforms ...

What was stated here many times by IBM people was that the code base was the same. Unqualified. Period. Whereas Oracle's wasn't. About as much sense as the rest of IBM's policies...

> How you can just completely dismiss the benefits of
> the minor differences in code base (mostly not at an application level)
> is beyond me, and shows how you think. There are great similaries across
> all these code bases.

So, is it "exactly the same" or "greatly similar"? Can't you idiots for once start to make sense in all that jazz about the "same product", "same code base" and all that UTTER crap?

> Intel/AMD/UNIX vs. iseries vs. 390/z platforms, so be it. Evidently,
> thousands of ISVs differ with you. It's a matter of cost vs. benefit,

They disagree so much with me that there isn't A SINGLE ONE writing code for AS400 UDB as well as Unix UDB. That's how much they "disagree with me"...

> application, and makes you more money? Does Toyota put the same engine
> in all their cars?

Who cares? Toyota is not stupid enough to claim they all aren't internal combustion engines. or that they all have the same number of cilinders.
Not something one can say about the "single code base" product. Received on Sun Jun 06 2004 - 22:39:00 CDT