XPost: comp.databases.informix, comp.databases, comp.databases.ibm-db2   
   From: ma@switchboard.net   
      
   "Neil Truby"  wrote in message   
   news:bk0e3j$il8he$1@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de...   
   > My point of raising the issue of bind was to demonstrate what a law unto   
   > itself IBM is, using this (warning, red-rag phrase alert!) dated concept   
   > beyond its sell-by date.   
   >   
   > I suppose we only comment upon it unfavourably because, er, well, because   
   we   
   > comment upon it unfavourably.  If it were some killer piece of   
   functionality   
   > that set DB2 UDB above the herd, we'd talk about in awesome tones ....   
   >   
   > A personal take on the wider debate is that DB2 UDB sites are few and far   
   > between here in the UK, so far as our market and sales team can tell.  We   
   > come at this subject from the Informix side.  Of course, many customers   
   are   
   > abandonning Informix because of the negative vibes they are getting from   
   > ISVs, or maybe from IBM themselves.  Will they go to DB2?  Well,   
   presumably   
   > they chose Informix because they had some good reason not to go with the   
   > market leader.  That strategy has bitten them in the arse.  Surely they   
   > aren't going to risk obsolesence again by choosing another marginal player   
   > in the UNIX/Linux/NT space?  And, irrrespective of its merits - and I   
   write   
   > as a DB2 UDB certified professional - that's what DB2 UDB is in this   
   space.   
   >   
   You seem to be judging the databases based on market share. Maybe in the UK   
   DB2 is not popular, but in the US it is doing very well against Oracle. MS   
   SQL Server is also doing well. Oracle is loosing market share, which is not   
   surprising since the pretty much owned the market at one time.   
      
   But again, your UK experience is not the same as in other countries.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)