Re: database market share 2003

Darin McBride allegedly said,on my timestamp of 3/06/2004 10:18 AM:

> 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.

Nope.

> 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.

Nope.

> 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!).

So, if you are using a AS400 to run RPG applications inherited from your 20 year old System 36, WTF is IBM counting THAT as a DB2 license?

> 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.

Sure. the problem is that IBM is counting ALL (let me see if you can grasp the difference: I said ALL, it means THE TOTALITY OF) AS400 sites as DB2 sites. Which they are NOT, NEVER were and NEVER will be.

> 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?

Yes. ALL AS400 sites IS a "significant portion of the AS400 market", in case you have not noticed?

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam