IBM

[Drizzt]

Oracle and HP looks to play in this space as IBM, its getting more crowded. do we see a clear edge for IBM?

You have mssql you can only run on windows. You have DB2 only can run on ibm built operating system. Oracle databases runs on 97% of all known operating systems and can integrate with almost all known business application today.

tell me where is the fight and where is the disadvantage.


(not vested in oracle regretfully)

huh, their business is bigger than that as well as the other 2 i missed out Cisco. oracle is not pure db btw. they are big on ERP and provide solutioning to government sector as well

---

The main competency of IBM is its vast human capital accumulated over the few decades. If I am not wrong, IBM is a huge customer of Oracle. A lot of companies hire IBM to integrate with PeopleSoft or Oracle database, not Oracle itself. The same can be said for SAP. IBM probably has more market share in deployment of SAP than SAP itself.

Yes, Oracle had a great database. The market is shrinking, not growing. Plus, DB2 and MSSQL is catching up. There is not a significant difference among all these databases, just the cost of switching is high.

Ask around about enterprise service.

if i were to articulate, i think buffett really dunno how the tech trend will grow.

essentially buffett could be thinking that this company will figure it out and self rejuvinate.

1) its got a management culture that you know the manager that gets out of it have a certain quality to them. there is a culture of a certain characteristics that is desirable. if there is a problem, the folks in there will figure it out. and the folks in there will roll with the punches and adjust to the envrionment because that is in their DNA

2) in the hedgehog concept, IBM probably knows what they are good at, what they are not good at and focus on it. in this case it could be their own consultants and managers. An effort to focus on that

3) in the hedgehog concept, they know how to provide the best measure of their performance, which is shown in their free cash flow targets long term and how capital will be allocated

4) in all things, perhaps ibm culture is such that they have a strong discpline to be able to execute what is required, which makes it very appealing

[sgd]

DB2 can only run on IBM built operating system, is that a joke?

DB2 can run on Windows/AIX/Unix/Linux, etc...

Which planet do you live in?

DB2 is optimized to run on ibm operating system, sure you can run it on other platforms but not problem free and ibm things not cheap.

I think terms of performance problem free use track record people choose oracle for that reason. For example they try to sell SAP and SAP frequently recommends using sybase but customers of SAP prefer to use oracle for the database backend.

Oracle is like coca cola company people drink coca cola from young, same with oracle, all the india national that works in IT industry most of the time if you question them they all want to learn to use oracle at some point why because of industry demand, capable oracle database administrators earn the big bucks.

Try asking anybody using oracle to switch to some other database they will tell you no or they don't dare to do it.

Try ask anybody using oracle on HP server to switch to IBM or sun equipment they will tell you yes why because there is "upgrade path" oracle runs on all these platform.

nuff said

---

essentially buffett could be thinking that this company will figure it out and self rejuvinate.

Warren buffet likes to invest in old companies but I will say he should invest in oracle. As long as businesses use computing databases will be around for a long long time.

[freedom]

Some most database-intensive commercial organizations are e-commerce companies, such as Amazon, Taobao, EBay, etc. However, if I am not wrong, none of them uses Oracle database. It speaks a lot about the trend in the future for database-intensive IT operations, not mentioning other less database-intensive operations.

[chialc88]

Regarding Oracle DB...
I'm quite amazed to see a particular implementation of Hadoop which replace Oracle DB last month.

The conventional solution is to use hugh server with multiple cores with loads of memory.

Instead, the SI (not IBM) use 42 small servers of Hadoop as the processing engine.

Interesting...

Regarding IBM...
I thought a common knowledge is Buffet brought IBM as a Service company or at least he was sold the idea that IBM provides services instead of HW/SW.

right?

[Clement]

Some most database-intensive commercial organizations are e-commerce companies, such as Amazon, Taobao, EBay, etc. However, if I am not wrong, none of them uses Oracle database. It speaks a lot about the trend in the future for database-intensive IT operations, not mentioning other less database-intensive operations.

eBay and Amazon do indeed use oracle databases. Amazon and salesforce are also using oracle to power the backend and database needs of their cloud software offerings.

[freedom]

You mean Amazon Web Service or Amazon, the e-commerce part?

Sure, Amazon Web Service sells Oracle, why not if customers are asking for it?

Last time, I remember, Amazon, the e-commerce part did not use Oracle database, maybe some, but most are not.

[Clement]

http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/amazon/ seems like they do use oracle database for their e commerce and data warehousing. Anyways let's not derail this thread. This should be about IBM.

[sgd]

Regarding Oracle DB...
I'm quite amazed to see a particular implementation of Hadoop which replace Oracle DB last month.

The conventional solution is to use hugh server with multiple cores with loads of memory.

Instead, the SI (not IBM) use 42 small servers of Hadoop as the processing engine.

Interesting...

Regarding IBM...
I thought a common knowledge is Buffet brought IBM as a Service company or at least he was sold the idea that IBM provides services instead of HW/SW.

right?

see what the founder of hadoop says about oracle database and the future of databases in general.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-guy-t...aid-2012-5

I think for big internet companies like yahoo it makes sense to design a distributed environment and have thousands server spread all over to manage the load and for redundancy and since your customers aren't necessary paying customers so just get the cheapest equipment you can find to do it.

But where as for other types of companies is a cost factor, traditionally servers are kept in equipment racks located at datacenters where space is leased putting 42 servers just for database is overkill and going to send bills thru the roof.

There's a lot of risks to consider whenever trying to replace your company infrastructure with any new technology. The most important asset in any company is the data everything else is replaceable but data is not. Delivering this data to your customers or users is the most critical aspect of IT but cost or trying to make things cheap should be one of the last things to consider.

A lot of new things out there all claim to be able to do super things able to deliver excellent performance results but in reality many do not deliver as advertised. Things are expensive or cheap for a reason.

[chialc88]

Agree.
Hadoop is definitely not going to replace the functionality of relational databases. (MySQL might.)

But, for that particular implementation of 42 servers, Hadoop definitely has an edge. As pointed out in your reference article...analytical, computational and hugh data.

And, SGD, you're right to point out the rack space requirement for 42 servers... it actually occupied EXACTLY one rack!
I am pretty sure that if this is a Oracle RAC cluster plus the SAN switches and Enterprise storage. Oracle solution would occupied more than one rack. In fact, most SAN storage would already occupied in one rack.

Regarding the important of having a right data protection strategy...
It's quite funny that Hadoop (despite its cheap hardware (both server, memory and Harddisk)) would be much more robust in term of online as well as remote data protection.

Check it out.




A Life not Reflected is a Life not Worth Living.

[CityFarmer]

S$1.08 billion in taxes! IBM India business is doing well...

India asks IBM to pay S$1.08 billion in outstanding tax: Reports

MUMBAI – Indian tax authorities have asked IBM’s Indian unit to pay 53.57 billion rupees (S$1.08 biillion) in outstanding income tax on fiscal 2009 revenue, media reported today (Nov 2).

In an emailed statement, an IBM India spokeswoman confirmed the company had received a tax notice, but declined to comment on the amount of tax liability or the nature of the notice.

India’s Income Tax office issued the company a notice for under-reporting revenue for fiscal 2009 by the Indian unit, the Business Standard newspaper said, citing a tax official.

“IBM does not agree with the tax department’s claims and will aggressively defend itself through the appropriate judicial process,” the IBM India spokeswoman said.

IBM has been locked in a tax dispute with authorities related to its 2009 reporting year income, media have reported previously.

Officials at India’s income tax office were not available for comment today.
...
http://www.todayonline.com/tech/india-as...ax-reports