Jeff Kell writes:
 
[some parts snipped...]
 
>Another issue I haven't heard mentioned or discussed is that of DBMS
>software.  Now that "open" systems exist, the "proprietary" component, if
>not the "dominant" component seems to be the DBMS software of choice.
>While an application may run on umpteen platforms, it likely requires a
>specific DBMS (Oracle, Sybase, Informix, etc).  Once you invest in a DBMS,
>it will then dictate your choices (does it run on FooBase?) as you are not
>likely to replicate DBMS investments (if you can and do, I envy your budget).
>
>Not that this is necessarily a "bad" thing, mind you; I just think that the
>DBMS is becoming more relevant (and/or proprietary) than the platform/vendor.
>Granted, we have the standards of SQL, ODBC, etc., but you see emphasis on
>these standards at the user reporting and utilities level, not applications.
>Many if not most applications are tightly coupled with the DBMS.
>
>Not sure where I'm headed with this argument so I'll hush :-)  Just food for
>thought.
 
Where you're headed, If I may be so bold, is to the conclusion that when it
comes to complete application systems there isn't true openness.
 
Many vertical market applications are tuned to a specific DBMS and also
only support certain vendor's h/w platforms. Anything out of the supported
configurations are 'not supported' and you take your risks using it. I think
some vendors call this "certification". Of course, having compatible systems
at the lower levels (DBMS/OS) makes it easier for the software vendor to
certify other platforms, assuming they see an economic reason.
 
Some of the newer applications that purport to be engineered around application
objects are more open, but underlying those objects are still lower
level pieces (like DBMS's and OS's) that influence the performance, viability,
and certification of the solution.
 
And how 'open' can anything be that depends upon a particular vendor for its
feature set, longevity and support. As you correctly point out the DBMS
vendors have this problem.
 
I've always thought that 'open' was something not realistically attainable
in the truest sense of the word, but worth striving for nonetheless.
 
Ok - thats my brain dump on this subject for today. I hope I didn't boor
too many with my ramblings.
 
I now return to my standard language of choice (Cobol) and my platform
of choice (HP3000/MPE), where I use my DBMS of choice (Image/SQL) from my
desktop system of choice (P-166, Win-95).
 
 
Duane Percox  (QSS)
[log in to unmask] (v:415.306.1608 f:415.365.2706)
http://www.aimnet.com/~qssnet/
 ftp://ftp.aimnet.com/pub/users/qssnet/
Don't miss the 'Land of QWEBS'... http://qwebs.qss.com