Mark Townsend wrote:
>
>> "SQL" means MS SQL Server
>
>
> Something I'm sure MS are more than happy with.
>
>> UDB means DB2 UDB for Linux Unix and Windows.
>
>
> This I just don't buy. You say this, but the IBM web site refers to
> DB2 Universal Database for .... when referring to all three code bases.
>
> And you have documents entitled "DB2 UDB Family On Common Ground".
>
> And these documents say things like "In February of 1999, IBM® announced
> DB2® Universal Database for iSeries (DB2 UDB for iSeries), ..."
>
> Searching for all the following keywords on the IBM website returns vast
> numbers of hits
> DB2 UDB iSeries - 8,691 hits
> DB2 UDB OS/390 - 8,095 hits
> Note that the total nbr of hits for DB2 UDB is only 56,445
>
>
> This is not accidental or even the result of a legacy. I firmly believe
> that somebody somewhere at IBM is more than happy that some people read
> UDB and mistakenly believe that it's all the same product.
>
> Otherwise all this stuff would have been corrected by now, right ?
>
Mark, I can't climb into other peoples minds,and I won't even try that
with executives.
But if DB2 UDB is best known on the Linux, Windows and Unix platform and
has that mindshare -
And Oracle is best known for databases, don't you think IBM executives
are as happy as Oracle to implicitly leverage brand-image and carry it over?
As you point out yourself, IBM's message there is inconsistent. It's not
IMHO ignoring the fact that they are different bases _systematically_
which is what is alleged.
I've never encountered having an publication of mine being polished to
exclude the platform identifier. I have seen teh reverse a lot.
If one submitts an article to IDUG or DBM Tech it is _mandatory_ to
clarify the applicability in the title if a talk is not cross-platform.
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Received on Thu Jun 10 2004 - 06:03:02 CDT
