No future for DB2

[Serge Rielau]

Re: Stateless clients and locking schemes (or rather isolation levels)

pobox002@bebub. com wrote:[color=blue]
> What I was trying to get across was that it appears to me that
> copying data to a private area in a session, usually a temporary
> table, is a technique that can be employed in a locking database
> by an application to provide a read consistent view of the data
> when needed. I think this adds complexity to the application and
> not having to do it because the database does it for me is a real
> benefit. The fact that I imagine this would be more complex when
> state is not maintained was an aside that in retrospect was not
> necessary and in fact detracted from the point I was trying to
> make.[/color]
Undeserved credit to temp tables, actually....
Either way, glad we straightened that one out. I've heard too many
misconceptions about "optimistic locking" vs read consistency of late
and was starting to wonder whether I'm the one having it wrong. :-)

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab

[Noons]

Re: No future for DB2

bka wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Nevertheless, it (Oracle) RUNS on mainframes. Which makes your
> >> claim above totally false.[/color][/color]
>
> runs, stumbles or crawls?[/color]

It doesn't matter: it's there. The same can be said
for udb on Windows, yet it's there.

[Noons]

Re: No future for DB2

John Carlson wrote:[color=blue]
>
> It takes a mainframe to run Oracle? I'd believe it . . . .8-)
>[/color]

dunno. But one thing I know for certain:
it takes a mainframe to run DB2.

[Noons]

Re: No future for DB2

Data Goob wrote:[color=blue]
> flames. They opted to buy the racing team with their marketing budget, instead
> of promoting any of their products. The racing team really helped get the[/color]

Oh puh-leaze: the ONLY reason IBM bought Informix
was that it was a cheap way of buying another 5 or so %
points in the db size of user base race so they could
claim to be ahead of Oracle!

They NEVER had any plan to do anything else with Informix
other than improperly claiming their share of the market
as DB2's or IBm's.

And that's a fact.

[Mark A]

Re: No future for DB2

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@yaho o.com.au> wrote in message[color=blue]
>
> Oh puh-leaze: the ONLY reason IBM bought Informix
> was that it was a cheap way of buying another 5 or so %
> points in the db size of user base race so they could
> claim to be ahead of Oracle!
>
> They NEVER had any plan to do anything else with Informix
> other than improperly claiming their share of the market
> as DB2's or IBm's.
>
> And that's a fact.
>[/color]
Kind of like Oracle buying Peoplesoft.

[DA Morgan]

Re: No future for DB2

rkusenet wrote:[color=blue]
> This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the
> author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp[/color]

Graph the calendar year vs. the average age of DB2 developers and DBAs.
Do the same for the other major commercial RDBMS products. You will have
your answer.

It is not that DB2 is technically incapable of competing. Rather IBM
is presiding over an aging baby-boom workforce. Speaking only from my
experience in the US ... a large number of colleges and universities,
including mine, have active programs teaching SQL Server and Oracle.
I can not think of a single one teaching DB2.

I left Fortran for a reason.
I left COBOL for the same reason.
Those working with DB2 should take a serious look at which is more
important ... product loyalty or paying the mortgage.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Captain Pedantic]

Re: No future for DB2

"bka" <badamache@yaho o.com> wrote in message
news:1122515145 .936820.249390@ g14g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> If only IBM already had a database product hugely respected in the UNIX
>>> market, and in fact designed specifically *for* that market, eh?[/color][/color]
>
> 4 in the top 9, including #1:
>
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...5&currencyID=0[/color]

I was actually thinking of Informix. DB2 was not designed specifically for
UNIX, but for the mainframe. We don't know if Informix would appear at or
near the top of TPC benchmarks because IBM won't enter it for them. We used
to believe that this because it would embarrass DB2, but personally I think
it's more likely to be an extension of the policy of never promoting
Informix, except to the existing user base.

[Mark A]

Re: No future for DB2

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug .org> wrote in message
news:1122533361 .487428@yasure. ..[color=blue]
> rkusenet wrote:[color=green]
>> This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the
>> author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp[/color]
>
> Graph the calendar year vs. the average age of DB2 developers and DBAs.
> Do the same for the other major commercial RDBMS products. You will have
> your answer.
>
> It is not that DB2 is technically incapable of competing. Rather IBM
> is presiding over an aging baby-boom workforce. Speaking only from my
> experience in the US ... a large number of colleges and universities,
> including mine, have active programs teaching SQL Server and Oracle.
> I can not think of a single one teaching DB2.
>
> I left Fortran for a reason.
> I left COBOL for the same reason.
> Those working with DB2 should take a serious look at which is more
> important ... product loyalty or paying the mortgage.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan[/color]

Even if your premise is correct (which I believe is greatly exaggerated),
your conclusions are backwards. If there are more DB2 DBA's retiring, then
there will be a shortage of DB2 talent and more job opportunities.

Given the ease of administration improvements in 10g (not to mention the
improvements that are no doubt coming in future Oracle releases), as 8i and
9i installations migrate to 10g, that alone will create at least a 30%
theoretical reduction in the number of Oracle DBA's needed. I expect this
trend to continue as Oracle fends off MS SQL Server.

[Mark A]

Re: No future for DB2

"Captain Pedantic" <theharlequin36 @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3krdv3Fv2e dcU1@individual .net...[color=blue]
> I was actually thinking of Informix. DB2 was not designed specifically for
> UNIX, but for the mainframe. We don't know if Informix would appear at or
> near the top of TPC benchmarks because IBM won't enter it for them. We
> used
> to believe that this because it would embarrass DB2, but personally I
> think
> it's more likely to be an extension of the policy of never promoting
> Informix, except to the existing user base.
>[/color]
DB2 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows was not designed for the mainframe. It is a
different code base than DB2 for z/OS. It was designed for OS/2 and AIX in
its first incarnations.

IBM purchased Informix for the patents (which had significant license fees)
and the market share. The buyout grew out of discussions with Informix about
license fees for the patents and IBM realized that Informix was asking for a
significant amount relative to the value of the whole company (Informix
stock had seriously depressed in value trying to compete against the big
3)..

TPC benchmarks are not exactly cheap since you really need a group of people
working full time on it, and lot of expensive hardware. This can easily add
up to a few million per year. IBM would rather that customers switch to DB2.

[DA Morgan]

Re: No future for DB2

Mark A wrote:[color=blue]
> "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yaho o.com.au> wrote in message
>[color=green]
>>Oh puh-leaze: the ONLY reason IBM bought Informix
>>was that it was a cheap way of buying another 5 or so %
>>points in the db size of user base race so they could
>>claim to be ahead of Oracle!
>>
>>They NEVER had any plan to do anything else with Informix
>>other than improperly claiming their share of the market
>>as DB2's or IBm's.
>>
>>And that's a fact.
>>[/color]
>
> Kind of like Oracle buying Peoplesoft.[/color]

Not the case at all. I'll bet hard dollars that when Oracle
get done fusing Oracle Apps with PeopleSoft ... some of what
will disappear is existing Oracle Apps replaced by superior
PeopleSoft design.

Informix will be lucky if it gets the respect Oracle has
given to RDB. More likely it will be to IBM what Fox is
to Microsoft. And that is a shame.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Re: No future for DB2

Captain Pedantic wrote:[color=blue]
> "bka" <badamache@yaho o.com> wrote in message
> news:1122515145 .936820.249390@ g14g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>If only IBM already had a database product hugely respected in the UNIX
>>>>market, and in fact designed specifically *for* that market, eh?[/color]
>>
>>4 in the top 9, including #1:
>>
>>http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...5&currencyID=0[/color]
>
>
> I was actually thinking of Informix. DB2 was not designed specifically for
> UNIX, but for the mainframe. We don't know if Informix would appear at or
> near the top of TPC benchmarks because IBM won't enter it for them. We used
> to believe that this because it would embarrass DB2, but personally I think
> it's more likely to be an extension of the policy of never promoting
> Informix, except to the existing user base.[/color]

I think it is both.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[DA Morgan]

Re: No future for DB2

Mark A wrote:[color=blue]
> "DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug .org> wrote in message
> news:1122533361 .487428@yasure. ..
>[color=green]
>>rkusenet wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the
>>>author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp[/color]
>>
>>Graph the calendar year vs. the average age of DB2 developers and DBAs.
>>Do the same for the other major commercial RDBMS products. You will have
>>your answer.
>>
>>It is not that DB2 is technically incapable of competing. Rather IBM
>>is presiding over an aging baby-boom workforce. Speaking only from my
>>experience in the US ... a large number of colleges and universities,
>>including mine, have active programs teaching SQL Server and Oracle.
>>I can not think of a single one teaching DB2.
>>
>>I left Fortran for a reason.
>>I left COBOL for the same reason.
>>Those working with DB2 should take a serious look at which is more
>>important ... product loyalty or paying the mortgage.
>>--
>>Daniel A. Morgan[/color]
>
>
> Even if your premise is correct (which I believe is greatly exaggerated),
> your conclusions are backwards. If there are more DB2 DBA's retiring, then
> there will be a shortage of DB2 talent and more job opportunities.
>
> Given the ease of administration improvements in 10g (not to mention the
> improvements that are no doubt coming in future Oracle releases), as 8i and
> 9i installations migrate to 10g, that alone will create at least a 30%
> theoretical reduction in the number of Oracle DBA's needed. I expect this
> trend to continue as Oracle fends off MS SQL Server.[/color]

Even if your statements are correct I don't believe it is going to
happen that way.

Lets say I have DB2 in my facility ... I was at a major IBM shop in
Portland Oregon three weeks ago that is precisely that.

And lets say the CTO isn't a software bigot but rather has his
corporation's best interests at heart. The CTO has a choice ... hire
young inexperienced talent and train them up to the level of those of
us in our 50s and 60s on mainframes which means also teaching COBOL,
CICS, MVS JCL, OS/390, z/OS, TSO, VSAM, IMS, REXX, ISPF, and CLISTS
or get already trained talent straight out of a college program.

Lets say the CFO of the firm has a choice of maintaining big iron
with attendant costs in infrastructure including power conditioning,
air conditioning, etc. or can build a mainframe from 2 proc or 4 proc
commodity hardware for a fraction of the cost and get the same
computing power at a fraction of the cost. Look at the number of
super computers now build from commodity hardware for example.

And lets say the Board of Directors is paying attention to the fact
that reducing costs increases the value per share of the stock which
is their fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders the direction
is clear.

The number of DBAs required in the future is going down like the
value of Sun Microsystems stock.

So yes there will be holes in the organization created. But I've yet
to meet the CTO whose solution was to incur the cost of training on
mainframe technologies. Heck most won't even pay money to train their
existing staff and they too need it.

It is all about dollars.
The C-Level management is looking out for the bottom line.
We need to be look out for our mortgage payments.
--
Daniel A. Morgan

http://www.psoug.org

damorgan@x.wash ington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

[Anton Versteeg]

Re: No future for DB2

Noons wrote:
[color=blue]
> Anton Versteeg wrote:
>[color=green]
>>The author forgets a couple of things:
>>DB2 is the only RDBMS that runs on mainframe, midrange and PC servers.[/color]
>
>
> False as can be...
>
>[color=green]
>>(Oracle is non-existent on the mainframe)[/color]
>
>
> Nevertheless, it RUNS on mainframes. Which makes your
> claim above totally false.
>[/color]

No since Oracle has zip marketshare on the mainframe,
my statement is true, but to please you I will rephrase it to:
DB2 is the only product that has proven it runs on the mainframe,
midrange and PC and also sunstantial market share.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>There is more data stored in DB2 than in any other DBMS product.[/color]
>
>
> Size matters now? :)
>[/color]

yooo man :)
[color=blue]
> Face it: outside of the mainframe environment, DB2
> has got NO CHANCE of long term survival.
>[/color]
Wannna bet? Kind of stealing from a child :)

--
Anton Versteeg
IBM Netherlands

[Anton Versteeg]

Re: No future for DB2

DA Morgan wrote:

[color=blue]
> Those working with DB2 should take a serious look at which is more
> important ... product loyalty or paying the mortgage.[/color]

You still have a mortgage?
Mine was paid off long time ago :)


--
Anton Versteeg
IBM Netherlands

[Noons]

Re: No future for DB2

DA Morgan apparently said,on my timestamp of 28/07/2005 5:26 PM:
[color=blue]
> Not the case at all. I'll bet hard dollars that when Oracle
> get done fusing Oracle Apps with PeopleSoft ... some of what
> will disappear is existing Oracle Apps replaced by superior
> PeopleSoft design.[/color]

"fusing"? You know something you don't wanna tell us, Daniel?
<g,d&r>
[color=blue]
> Informix will be lucky if it gets the respect Oracle has
> given to RDB. More likely it will be to IBM what Fox is
> to Microsoft. And that is a shame.[/color]

Indeed.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
wizofoz2k@yahoo .com.au.nospam