[svlug] Guess who has a Linux port of its SQL database?

Alan Denney yosemite at programmer.net
Mon Mar 7 17:50:41 PST 2016

>The 'we have no Linux version' charade collapsed _so_ quickly (about 2-3
>months) that it made clear that every single one of these firms had been
>maintaining an active Linux port for years, and been lying through their

In the case of Informix, that's not true.  Although some of us had lobbied
for (and dabbled with) a Linux port on our own, by the mid-1990s, ports for
x86 platforms (SCO, AT&T System V/386, Unixware, Solaris on Intel) had been
offshored, so recent platform-specific expertise was not in house (on this
side of the planet, anyway).

I tried to get them to have a presence at obvious events like the PC UNIX
SIG, but all resources were marketing-controlled.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> Haha.  This news item (Microsoft SQL Server to become available as a
> Linux port) will be amusing to all Linux old-timers.  The reason:
> All through the Nineties, customers kept approaching _all_ of the big
> SQL database companies (Informix, Oracle, Sybase, many more)[1] and having
> this conversation:
> Us:  When are you releasing a Linux version of your database?
> Them:  We have no plans for a Linux version.
> Us:  Why on earth not?
> Them:  We've extensively studied the market, and determined that there
>   is absolutely no market demand whatsoever for a Linux version.
> Us:  Rumour has it that you already have a Linux port.
> Them:  We do not have a Linux port.  There are probably significant
>   obstacles to porting, but we've put no development effort into that
>   at all, and, besides, there might be legal and stability complications
>   on such a non-enterprise, non-commercial OS.  We therefore recommend
>   that Unix users continue to deploy on one of our supported platforms
>   such as HP/UX and Solaris.
> This charade continued, with poker-faced corporate people staunchly
> denying that there has been any exploration whatsoever of functionality
> on Linux... until July 22, 1998, when Informix (which is now IBM
> Informix) broke ranks and said they would be releasing a full Informix
> Dynamic Server development kit with full libraries.
> Suddenly, in a panic at having been left behind, Oracle hastily put
> together an announcement a few days later that, of course, they would
> release a Linux kit of Oracle8 and Oracle Applications Real Soon Now.
> InterBase followed, Ingres II, DB2, and on and on.
> The 'we have no Linux version' charade collapsed _so_ quickly (about 2-3
> months) that it made clear that every single one of these firms had been
> maintaining an active Linux port for years, and been lying through their
> teeth.
>  From 1998 to 2016, for eighteen years, every single SQL database company
> has shipped a Linux version, except for the one, solitary holdout.
> [1] Exception:  One proprietary SQL database, ADABAS D, had been
> officially ported to Linux in 1996 by Software AG, and shipped tailored
> for Caldera Network Desktop.  ADABAS D wasn't usually considered a major
> RDBMS offering.
> ----- Forwarded message from Ed Rogers <ed at rogersecommerce.com> -----
> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 23:27:13 +0000
> From: Ed Rogers <ed at rogersecommerce.com>
> To: talk at nblug.org
> Subject: [NBLUG/talk] Linux meets the monster
> I don't know the history behind this, but here it is:
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-is-porting-sql-server-to-linux/
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at nblug.org
> http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> svlug mailing list
> svlug at lists.svlug.org
> http://lists.svlug.org/lists/listinfo/svlug
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.svlug.org/archives/svlug/attachments/20160307/42411085/attachment-0001.htm

More information about the svlug mailing list