Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

Peter,

I cannot answer your questions on the details on what specific features of DB2 ISVs like Siebel, SAP, Peoplesoft, etc. use. Perhaps someone in vendor relations or at the lab can shed more light on this. But the point is this: there is no way that companies of that size would bet their business on a database that is not solid, stable, bulletproof, and competitive. Not only do they use DB2 as their reference platform, but they use it to run their own internal systems. They have a choice. Why don't they use Oracle or SQL Server?

In terms of your statement about web-enabled application connectivity, whether or not your business requirements are such that a queue-based product is needed for communication is an individual decision and depends upon your business requirements. There are many ways to communicate between applications and databases. Any IBM sw salesperson hearing an application or communications requirement should either review options with you or should engage other sw salespeople who are experts in MQ ... if the requirement cannot be addressed by products within the IBM database portfolio. I cannot addressed what happened in your particular situation cause I was not involved. And frankly, do you really think you are using the best-of-breed product in messaging? If Oracle's messaging component is so good, how do you explain the fact that companies like Tibco, BEA, and IBM have messaging products that are so prominent in the marketplace? Do you really think that Oracle would just give it away with their database if they could charge for it?

It boils down to a fundamental difference in strategy. Companies like Oracle promote a strategy that moves almost EVERYTHING into the database. Companies like IBM believe that they would rather allow you to select the product/component that you use together with your database so that not only do you have the choice ... but you can select the best-of-breed in technology. I'm not sure you can say that one is completely right or wrong ... they are simply two different strategies.

And given the choice of MQ, I can't imagine what causes you to need 5-10 administrators unless you have a massive application or unless you are still in development mode (in which case I'm not sure I understand the issue). I would be curious to hear what the MQ people have to say about this.

And ... you continue to talk about this problem you experienced with the instance "disappearing". But you have failed to provide any details at all in terms of os levels, DB2 levels, patch levels, error messages, a PMR number, or the response of IBM support. How about giving us some details so we can fully understand the issue?

Larry Edelstein

Peter wrote:

> Hi Larry!
>
> ISVs like Siebel and Peoplesoft develop on DB2, it sounds great
> but can you tell me what all features of DB2 that they are using other than
> backup and restore. In DB2 for web enabled application to communicate,
> you need IBM MQ series and 5-10 experts for MQ administration and
> development work. IBM doesn't tell the actual cost to buy and maintain
> MQ to the customers during initial sales meeting.
>
> I think INFORMIX is a better and stable product of IBM on non
> Main Frames system. In DB2, when instance disappear the simple
> soution is to resrat it by db2start command. There are many
> companies that can effort it in production so they will not
> mind it at all.
>
> Peter
>
> "Andrew Hamm" <ahamm_at_mail.com> wrote in message news:<bk39q9$oq4r4$1_at_ID-79573.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
> > >
> > >[SNIP]
> > > very large BMW because I have a very small willy. Market share played
> > >[SNIP]
> > > However, market share *is* important for ISVs and third party
> > > developers -- they are reluctant to develop on and support a platform
> > > that doesn't give them broad exposure to the market. Conversely, this
> > >[SNIP]
> >
> > How horrible; OTC talking about his very small willy, and broad exposure, in
> > the same message. I need an aspirin and a good lie down....
Received on Mon Sep 15 2003 - 22:10:58 CEST