Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: database market share 2003

Re: database market share 2003

From: Noons <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:12:20 +1000
Message-ID: <40c43f83$0$8984$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>


Serge Rielau allegedly said,on my timestamp of 4/06/2004 11:02 AM:

> Well, Blair commented on the language, so I shall refrain from that.

Stop posting stupid and idiotic replies (not you!) and it will stop. Until then, you get it back in whatever fashion I deem appropriate, and there is preciously nothing anyone can do about it. Sorry, but that's the way it goes when someone tries to insult everyone's intelligence.

> Either way: IBM does NOT know how many customers use which parts of the
> i/Series's operation system.

Good. Can I quote that WIDELY as a truth finally admitted? Just like the "same code base everywhere" three years ago that turned out to be "only here and there" after the derision got too loud?

> What you refer to as DB2 is a surpringly small SQL interface to OS/400.

I don't get this: Is it small in user base? Or small in code size? Complexity? Or irrelevant to this discussion (as it should have remained)?

 > Customers choose to work with OS/400 filesystem or the SQL interface.

Yes. Therefore and until IBM knows precisely who is using what, it is pointless, stupid and inaccurate to claim that ALL AS400 licenses are DB2/UDB licenses (implied as being used as such).

> etc. i/Series is a DBMS with a capital S for SYSTEM. It is what
> Microsoft wants to have. One big "magic box" (remember the commercial?).

Serge, Serge, Serge: I KNOW what it is. When it came out, it was a BIG step ahead in all this OS rubbish. And lauded as such, and the customer base responded accordingly by making the AS400 the most successful IBM platform EVER! Long before DB2 existed anywhere else other than as SQL/DS.

What it NEVER was, is NOT and NEVER will be is DB2, or UDB! No matter how many times the deranged IBM marketing decides to change its name.

> It is IMPOSSIBLE to separate DB2 function from OS/400 function.

But like you said above: many customers decide what to use. Amazing how those customers can be more discerning than IBM's own people...

> when we discuss new "DB2" features I get: "Oh we do this through the
> filesystem interface like that since n-years".

Bingo.

> If a customers use OS/400 but not the SQL Interface, are they not using
> DB2? If customers are using Oracle through XQuery are they not using
> Oracle the database system? Should they not be counted? Does Oracle know?

Serge, when will you "folks" just wake up from the marketing bullshit you're fed every day? Can't you even spot the cretin abuse of language that is such an argument?

Here is a clue: Oracle does not bundle Oracle licenses with other totally inappropriate products. They only sell Oracle. Therefore, what they sell cannot be other than Oracle licenses.

A more clear example, in case you have not clicked yet: NO ONE goes to Oracle to buy a coffee grinder and ends up with an Oracle license (as much as it may hurt Larry's over-sensitive pocket).

However, in IBM's case it is perfectly possible to buy an AS400 - or whatever IBM calls coffee grinders now - with a bunch of inherited and badly ported 3rd party System 38 packages and end up counted as a DB2/UDB(this last one is even more cretin!...) "user".

In Microsoft's and IBM's case, the onus is on the maker to PROVE they are not just churning numbers. And IBM's poor excuse of "we do not know how many" is at best a poor attempt to get their arses off the firing line.

Got it now? Do you understand why I consider this kind of semantics (by Gartner, IBM or whomever!) an offensive abuse of anyone's patience and intelligence? Or do I have to use smaller words to explain myself?

Cripes, you people have some really smart cookies around, maybe you should bounce these moronic marketing campaigns off them every once in a while?

> Brace yourself, because that whole "relational" DBMS categorization is
> going to get pretty meaningless anyway as MS, Oracle and IBM bury XML
> deep into their "engines" and Information Integration and Content
> Management gets bigger and bigger.

I've been braced for it since, let me see: around 1997.

> It's all data. Your favorite email repository, text, image, XML, network
> router for crying out lout.

Did I ever say it wasn't?

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam
Received on Mon Jun 07 2004 - 05:12:20 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US