Re: database market share 2003

From: Larry <Larry_at_nospam.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:09:04 GMT
Message-ID: <ki7wc.9284$jD6.3116100@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>

Precisely! The case is made that different code bases is actually better! You've got to have different exploitative code on each platform. And what really counts? From an application perspective, they are highly portable. DDL and DML compatibility are (last I heard) > 97% (and DDL must be slightly different between platforms to account for the differing storage constructs between them, e.g.).

So ... no ... they are not from 1 code base ... but it's the next best thing ... they are close. Close and at the same time highly optimized for each platform. All things considered, pretty darn good considering that these are requirements that conflict with each other.

Larry Edelstein

Mark A wrote:

>>these are 3 different code bases, still not fully compatible at the
>>DML level, much less DDL.  is anyone at IBM willing to assert that they
>>are now from 1 code base?

>
>
> They are not the same code base.
>
> - DB2/400 is one code base (Oracle doesn't support that platform)
> - DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows is another code base
> - DB2 for OS/390 and z/OS is another code base (Oracle has a product on this
> platform, but it performs poorly compared to DB2 - because it shares the
> codebase of its other products, and most customers hardly ever use it even
> if it is installed).
>
> So among these three platform groups, Oracle is only widely used on one of
> them (Linux, UNIX ,and Windows) where DB2 does have the same codebase. Also
> note that DB2 for Linux runs on IBM mainframes (same code base as DB2 for
> Linux, UNIX, and Windows).
>
>
Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 18:09:04 CDT