Re: database market share 2003

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 19:57:26 -0700
Message-ID: <1085885854.322603@yasure>

Mark A wrote:

> "robert" <gnuoytr_at_rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:da3c2186.0405291715.5e4125bd_at_posting.google.com...
> 

>>what i've not seen is the other side of this coin: that (perhaps)
>>IBM's share is skewed (looks larger than it really is) by the
>>fact that it pretty much owns the mainframe. a relative handful
>>of very expensive installs. in other words, i question how relevant
>>DB2 is to the future of relational databases. IBM needs to
>>demonstrate that it is relevant outside of conversions (i use
>>the term very, very loosely) of behemouth COBOL/VSAM systems. at
>>my work, they just defined tables from the copybooks. i
>>gather this is quite common.
>>
>>robert

> 
> 
> Since DB2 mainframe has been around since the mid-1980's, that is
> ridiculous. The overwhelming majority or DB2 OS/390 applications were
> designed on DB2 from scratch. Your company may be an exception, and somewhat
> backward. After all, they employ you, so it must be a really screwed up
> company.

But for how much longer ... I wonder?

I am watching the huge inroads being made by clustered Linux taking out Sun's and H/P's more expensive offerings. I built an 8 CPU cluster a few weeks back with less than $11,000 US in hardware.

How long before it becomes easy to build OS/390 equivalent machines with a rack of 2 CPU x 4GB Intel boxes running RedHat AS?

I suspect far sooner than you want to imagine.

And when the big iron goes ... do you think DB2 will survive? Informix, in my opinion, has a better chance of surviving.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 21:57:26 CDT