Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

"Neil Truby" <neil.truby_at_ardenta.com> wrote in message news:bk0e3j$il8he$1_at_ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...
> My point of raising the issue of bind was to demonstrate what a law unto
> itself IBM is, using this (warning, red-rag phrase alert!) dated concept
> beyond its sell-by date.
>
> I suppose we only comment upon it unfavourably because, er, well, because
we
> comment upon it unfavourably. If it were some killer piece of
functionality
> that set DB2 UDB above the herd, we'd talk about in awesome tones ....
>
> A personal take on the wider debate is that DB2 UDB sites are few and far
> between here in the UK, so far as our market and sales team can tell. We
> come at this subject from the Informix side. Of course, many customers
are
> abandonning Informix because of the negative vibes they are getting from
> ISVs, or maybe from IBM themselves. Will they go to DB2? Well,
presumably
> they chose Informix because they had some good reason not to go with the
> market leader. That strategy has bitten them in the arse. Surely they
> aren't going to risk obsolesence again by choosing another marginal player
> in the UNIX/Linux/NT space? And, irrrespective of its merits - and I
write
> as a DB2 UDB certified professional - that's what DB2 UDB is in this
space.
>

You seem to be judging the databases based on market share. Maybe in the UK DB2 is not popular, but in the US it is doing very well against Oracle. MS SQL Server is also doing well. Oracle is loosing market share, which is not surprising since the pretty much owned the market at one time.

But again, your UK experience is not the same as in other countries. Received on Sun Sep 14 2003 - 02:56:05 CEST