Daniel Morgan said:

> The reason Oracle doesn't concentrate on OS/390, if that is the case,
> might also relate to the difficulty of selling into a marketshare very
> carefully managed by IBM.

Jesus, Daniel, why don't you blame IBM for the ebola virus as well, while
you're at it?

I'd like to point out that companies like Compuware, BMC and Computer
Associates do exceptionally well in the "carefully managed" IBM mainframe
market. Could it possibly be that either Oracle doesn't grok the mainframe
market or sees it as different to core business and so doesn't work as
hard on it? Or maybe something else? Does it *have* to be nasty IBM's
fault that Oracle doesn't have big marketshare in the mainframe database
as well? Is it not remotely possible that Oracle cannot or will not commit
to the market? Have you considered that it could be entirely or largely
Oracle's own responsibility to try and compete in a given market.

Sure, IBM does stuff we don't agree with. So does every other company that
walks the earth. Get over it.

--
Bye now,
Obnoxio

"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche

"I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't get my head up my ass"
- JCH

"Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"
- Marco

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
sending to informix-list

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message news:<cac24q$6mn$1@news.xmission.com>...
> Daniel Morgan said:
>
> > The reason Oracle doesn't concentrate on OS/390, if that is the case,
> > might also relate to the difficulty of selling into a marketshare very
> > carefully managed by IBM.
>
> Jesus, Daniel, why don't you blame IBM for the ebola virus as well, while
> you're at it?
>
> I'd like to point out that companies like Compuware, BMC and Computer
> Associates do exceptionally well in the "carefully managed" IBM mainframe
> market. Could it possibly be that either Oracle doesn't grok the mainframe
> market or sees it as different to core business and so doesn't work as
> hard on it? Or maybe something else? Does it *have* to be nasty IBM's

Maybe it's because the founders of all those companies used to work
for IBM?
http://www.compuware.com/corporate/793_ENG_HTML.htm
http://www.bmc.com/BMC/Common/CDA/ho...128252,00.html
http://www.ca.com/about/history.htm

> fault that Oracle doesn't have big marketshare in the mainframe database
> as well? Is it not remotely possible that Oracle cannot or will not commit
> to the market? Have you considered that it could be entirely or largely
> Oracle's own responsibility to try and compete in a given market.

Yes, it could very well be Larry doesn't see competing directly on the
platform as a growth market, versus growing competing platforms.

>
> Sure, IBM does stuff we don't agree with. So does every other company that
> walks the earth. Get over it.

We can make a difference, sometimes with as little as letting them
know it is an issue. Other times by letting the gummint have it's way
with them.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1offshore.html