Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Considering DB2 on Mac OS X

Posted by pudge on from the yes-some-people-still-use-db2 dept.

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.'"

7 of 38 comments (clear)

  1. Too late? by babbage · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The survey seems to have been pulled:
    Your request cannot be completed. The following error message was returned:

    The survey you requested: "4551/DB2forMacOS.htm" has been deactivated.

    For questions regarding the survey you were attempting to complete, please contact the owner of the survey directly.

    If you feel that you are receiving this message as a result of a system error, please send us an email.

    Anyway, I've never worked with DB2 before so yes I'm talking out of my ass here, but I picture it as a high quality enterprise server database meant to be run on big IBM mainframes, big Sun servers, medium size Dell or HP Linux machines, etc. 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. For better or worse, I picture OSX as a client OS, not a server one, though perhaps that will change over time. [NB that I'm typing this from an OSX box.]

    So, all that said, does anyone run DB2 on client workstation hardware? I can maybe picture developers working with an intra-office instance of the server, but really I thought it wanted something more substantial than the average PC or Mac in order to run happily. Am I wrong? Would any of you have a use for client / lightweight DB2?

    --
    DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
    1. Re:Too late? by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Both you and ZeroLogic are kind of missing the point. Having a copy of DB2 running on your desktop-- or, hell, your laptop-- would be a great thing if you were a DB2 or database application developer. Since OS X is rapidly becoming a platform of choice for Java development, putting the big DBMS's on OS X as well would practically get us to the point where a PowerBook or iBook can be a portable, self-contained J2EE development system.

      Besides, Oracle and Sybase are already available for OS X. Landing DB2 would complete the trifecta.

      I really doubt IBM is thinking about positioning DB2 running on OS X as an enterprise solution.

    2. Re:Too late? by xil · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  2. IBM getting MS back by Zelet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I worked at IBM there was a sincere hatred for everthing Microsoft (in my dept, in my building, in my town - I can't talk for all of IBM). What I think IBM is doing is kicking the sand in Microsofts face. They are pushing every platform but MS.

    IBM fully supports Linux and now they are startin on OSX, I think they really want to get rid of MS. Maybe it is just me:P

    --
    ...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
  3. Re:The real question is this. by foobar104 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does IBM want Oracle to be the only Enterprise Database Server product for OS X Server?

    Given that Sybase has been available for OS X for several weeks now, I'd say the answer is no. Or maybe yes. Ummm. What was the question?

  4. Apple and IBM hardware ties? by ilovehippies · · Score: 4, Interesting

    maybe IBM is interested in os X because they know soon Apple will be using 64 bit IBM produced chips? I dont think they would bother ported it over now, and apple hardware CURRENTLY isn't the best solution for their software, but maybe they know something we dont about what chips apple is going to use in the next round of powermacs or xserves

    --
    and yes i am pulling this out of my ass, but hey its the internet so who cares?
  5. Re:Are XServe's quite there? by kwerle · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hum. I wonder what you think "high end" is?
    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 .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.

    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?!?