Re: database market share 2003

From: Darin McBride <dmcbride_at_naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:18:40 GMT
Message-ID: <A7uvc.653216$Ig.357895@pd7tw2no>

Larry wrote:

> For the same reason that you want IBM to stop counting DB2 on AS/400.
> 
> Larry
> 
> Noons wrote:

>> Larry allegedly said,on my timestamp of 2/06/2004 2:18 AM:
>>
>>> Here we go again.
>>
>>
>> Yes. for as long as those cretin claims continue...
>>
>>> Has Oracle stopped counting UNIX or has Microsoft stopped counting
>>> Windows?
>>
>>
>> Why should they?
>>

I think Noons' point is that it's unfair to compare Oracle (Linux, Unix, Windows) against DB2 (Linux, Unix, Windows, AS/400) since the domains are different.

Larry wonders why it's fair, using the same logic, to compare Oracle (Linux, Unix, Windows) against MS SQL Server (Windows) since the domains are different.

Of course, neither one makes sense. While some companies do constrain their spending to certain platforms (all-MS shop running Windows, all-HP, all-Sun, all-IBM, etc.), I would think that most database-using shops are simply trying to store and retrieve data. As long as that works, the platform in use is only of as much interest as their budget allows (i.e., a budget of $20,000 isn't going to get an AS/400!).

If they go out and purchase some hardware running DB2, or Oracle, or SQL Server, that's what they bought. So it counts for that product.

Noons' second point is that all AS/400 users are counted as DB2 customers whether they use it or not. Sorta like all Windows users are counted as IE users, for example. However, what Noons has not proven, or even attempted to demonstrate, is that this is a significant distortion of the reality. Fact is that they did buy DB2, although reality may be that they didn't want to. But is that a significant portion of the AS/400 market as to render it misleading? Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 19:18:40 CDT