Lists Home |
Date Index |
On 5/4/05, Rick Marshall <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> >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...