SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : OBJECT DESIGN Inc.: Bargain of the year!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: hasbeen101 who wrote (2625)12/15/1998 1:20:00 AM
From: Joe Pic  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 3194
 
FWIW, I'll offer my opinion.
When Oracle was small, large companies had large IT departments and the DBMS market was large. The Databases were IMS, IDMS, Adabas, Model 204 and DataComm DB. The most prevalent were IMS and IDMS. Then came the idea that Relational was the answer. Since many companies had decision makers who choose IDMS because the salesman was good or IMS because it was IBM it followed that Relational Hype would be sufficient in and of itself to convince decision makers that they needed to get to relational. Cullinet did a poor job and too late a job to salvage it's customer base. However, DB2 was such a dog that it never replaced IDMS or IMS. It merely grew in the mainframe world at a slow pace. Oracle on the other hand was not bought initially as a database for custom development in the mainframe world. It was brought in with an appropriate application for some decentralized operation. Today, there fewer and fewer IT departments that understand or evaluate the requirements of company. The department may have its tech support as well as its operations outsourced with a mission to maintain. However, individual departments with more specific needs may have authority to bring in an objectstore to fit the specific purpose. If ODIS is a niche, at least right now, that may be the best, if not only, way to proceed.