Re: database market share 2003

From: nobody <nobody_at_devnull.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 08:02:33 -0500
Message-ID: <40C5B8E9.7070108@devnull.org>

Its pathetic that you can't write good code. ;-)

If you can grok C++, then you should be able to write thread safe C code and then use them. And actually if you're wroting in C++ then you need to have your head examined. But thats a whole different flame war. ;-)

But I bet you have trouble with JDBC and how J2EE tries to use the database only as a means to make objects persistent. ;-)

But hey what do I know? ;-)
I"m just an old school programmer.

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>

>> 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.
>>

> Well, I ran Informix on my Red Hat Linux 5.0 box for a while. It was a
> bit pathetic in that it did not have an API for C++: only for C. So I
> ended up writing a large bunch of C functions to interface to the
> Informix server. It worked, but sloppy. Then I upgraded to Red Hat Linux
> 6.0 and Informix never worked again. I e-mailed Informix about it and
> they said they did not know if it would work with 6.0 or not. I said I
> would be glad to test it for them, but that the CD-ROM I had would not
> read and could they send me another one. They never answered any e-mails
> after that.
>
> Which is why I upgraded to IBM DB2 UDB V6.1 which worked just fine.
> Since I am cheap, I kept V6.1 through upgrades to RHL 6.2 and 6.3. Now
> DB2 V6.1 did not really like RHL 7.3. It worked because there were some
> "compatability libraries" that could be used, but it meant I had to
> change all the makefiles to use those libraries, including getting it to
> use the compatibility version of ldd.so.
>
> Anyhow, when I built this machine I put Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 ES on
> it and installed IBM DB2 UDB V8.1 (upgraded to 8.1.5) and after a fight
> to get it installed (graphic installer does not work), it runs just fine
> on a dual hyperthreaded Intel XEON machine with 4GB (expandable to 16 GB
> if I found I needed it).
>
> Unless Informix has been greatly improved since the time RHL 6 came out,
> I do not see why anyone would wish to use it unless it is a lot cheaper
> than DB2.
>
> My needs are quite modest, since I am running it single-user for a
> single small (by dbms standards) database. But back when I started,
> postgreSQL and Oracle were the other alternatives, and postgreSQL did
> not run right (one version would not allow primary keys to be specified,
> and another was unable to have views), and Oracle's license agreement
> was so complicated that I refused to sign it.
>
> If a small user such as I can use it, I see no reason why a larger user
> could not.
>
Received on Tue Jun 08 2004 - 08:02:33 CDT