XPost: comp.databases.informix, comp.databases, comp.databases.ibm-db2   
   From: DBA@nospam.net   
      
   You can't compare choosing IBM vs. choosing Informix. IBM is not likely to go   
   out of business or be taken over by another company. The market share #'s are   
   much closer than you indicate.   
      
   The idea of using market share is blown way out of proportion. Other factors   
   being equal, would you not buy a Toyota over a Nissan if you found out that   
   Toyota had say 20% of the market and Nissan had 25%? Would you not buy a   
   Panasonic television over a Sony if you found out that Panasonic had a 30%   
   market share and Sony had a 25% share? The bottom line is you evaluate the   
   product on its merits ... you evaluate the suitability of the database to your   
   environment/applications ... you evaluate the vendor on its merits ... and you   
   make a decision. What you CARE about is not whether the market share of vendor   
   A   
   is 3% more than vendor B ... you care about whether the vendor is going to be   
   there to support you in the future ... and whether that vendor is likely to   
   continue to invest in their products.   
      
   Neil Truby wrote:   
      
   > "Jim Kennedy"  wrote in message   
   > news:KZM8b.440312$uu5.78501@sccrnsc04...   
   > >   
   > > "Mark A"  wrote in message   
   > > news:wGM8b.797$TJ.83525@news.uswest.net...   
   >   
   > > > Developers should not be doing binds in a production environment.   
   > > >   
   > > >   
   > > Doesn't matter, in order for them to get the programs from one environment   
   > > to another they needed to compile their code in production to bind it.   
   > > (according to that group) It was a large company and we were just a small   
   > > part of  one group. (It was a mainframe after all.)  The point being DB2   
   > was   
   > > poorly designed with respect to concurrency.  No reason more than one   
   > person   
   > > should not be able to bind at a time. It means that "ad hoc" or dynamic   
   > sql   
   > > on DB2 means everyone serializes behind it.  That is very very ugly.  Sure   
   > > one can administratively work around it by telling everyone not to use a   
   > > feature of the database, still it is a severe limitation.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)