Re: Is that true: IBM overtakes Oracle in total database sales

Haider Rizvi wrote:

> Nuno Souto <nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam> writes:
>
> > There is. M$ wins by country mile with Access, Foxpro and SQL Server.
> > Relevant? No more than OS390 DB2 licences...
>
> So what exacatly is relevant? Only the platforms where Oracle has a
> lead?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Haider

Everyone gets the right to define, based on their own criteria, what is relevant. As this entire issue is one of one company's marketing hyperbole versus anothers it really doesn't matter. Are we talking about the number of:

users?
connections?
terabytes of data stored?
cpus?
machines?
licenses? (and what is or is not license) instances?
databases?
downloads from a web site?

If you are building extremely large databases your universe might consist of only Oracle, UDB and Teradata (a name that is hardly ever mentioned here). If you are working with small department level tracking it might well be reasonable to add in Access, Fox, Paradox, dBASE (just kidding), and the freeware products.

I think when developers get caught up in this nonsense they lose sight of the fact that these are just tools. You pick the right tool for the job depending on the job requirements. Don't build a house with a rivet gun ... don't build an airplane with a nail gun.

It is important to remember that marketshare is irrelevant unless you own stock or the company is facing extinction.

Daniel Morgan Received on Fri May 10 2002 - 13:17:41 CDT