Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 5/4/05, Rick Marshall <rjm@z...> wrote: > Peter Hunsberger wrote: <snip/> > > > > >I don't think such a beast is necessarily centralized, it's just > >highly integrated. I doubt that the users (whomever they may be) > >understand what they are asking for in direct terms. But as the > >article and this thread points out, the market seems to be building > >this whether the users want it or not. Oracles vision of the DB as an > >OS is well known. MS is adding some form of DB into the middle of its > >next OS (some time real soon now, well maybe sort of). IBM continues > >to integrate everything into one massive WebSphere/DB2 conglomerate. > > > > > back to the future - os/400 (system 36/38), and mumps, and the apple > lisa, and the prime thing as well...... to mention a couple of > approaches to this problem. Sure. One difference being is that it's no longer just a couple of visionary pioneer systems, this time around it's pervasive. Of the ones you mentions the OS/400 is the most successful; one has to wonder; if IBM had been able to push the technology down into the PC world type price points (perhaps instead of building OS/2 etc.) what would have happened... <snip/> -- Peter Hunsberger
|
