Slashdot Mirror
IBM Considering DB2 on Mac OS X
zzen writes "Aparently, IBM is looking for input on the posibility of their DB2 database being ported to Mac OS X. MacObserver writes: 'IBM has posted a survey asking Mac OS X users if they are interested in having DB2 ported to Mac OS X. DB2 is an enterprise level database solution from IBM, and a Mac OS X port from IBM would be a major boost for Mac OS X in the corporate market place.'"
As always with IBM, things aren't as simple as they appear. There are a number of different products which are all called DB2, ranging from small PC-size DBs to stuff that could only work on a mainframe. (For all I know, the big and little DB2s don't even share any code.)
Several years ago, I ran a DB2 database on a medium-level PC, without problems. I don't see why it would be any more of a problem now.
A WebObjects (Apples Java Application Server) Adaptor (WebObjects JDBC PlugIn) for DB2 would be a nice start. Such adaptors are needed for some taks that are different accross RDBMS like reverse engeneering a database with the modeler or primary key generation...
What a stupid and childish comment.
Heh, I'll take it you are new to our little ghetto known as the Apple stories that don't go front page. It's like the "BSD is dying" troll in the BSD section; a thread wouldn't be complete without it.
"I also have the impression that Apple's one offering this direction -- Xserve -- is a nice but overpriced & underuseful machine that isn't going to be replacing the competition any time soon."
Apple's server is the cheapest 1U server available. It's roughly the same price as a Dell PowerEdge 1650 1U server with Red Hat Linux with minimal hard drives options, cheaper by about $1000 with full drive options & several thousand cheaper than the same hardware with Windows 2000 Server.
With full file-serving to Windows (Samba), Mac, & Unix (NFS) clients, plus built-in Apache, CUPS print server & the ability to run most any J2SE server applets, it's a bargain.
Hum. I wonder what you think "high end" is? .5TB disk is big enough to do an awful lot of work. This is well above IBM's own pSeries bottom end, though it obviously is nowhere near the top. The bottom line is, unless you've got HUGE amounts of data, it seems reasonable that you could go with Apple and DB2.
From store.apple.com:
---
Dual 1 GHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 cache & 2MB L3 cache
per processor
2.0GB DDR SDRAM @ 266MHz
4x120GB Apple Drive Modules
CD-ROM drive
ATI Graphics Card
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
Two USB ports
Three FireWire ports
---
OK, there's bigger hardware out there, but I'm thinking that 2G RAM and nearly
Yes, HUGE is a relative term, but how many businesses fit into the "it's enough for us" category. Hell, if they're selling it on Linux PC's, why not Apple, too?!?