Regarding the disruptive nature of relational DBMS: In the mid 1980's, I was working for Cullinet Software, which at the time was the largest software company in the world. It produced IDMS, a mainframe-based Codasyl (i.e., network) database. It's primary competition was IMS. IDMS supported high performance comparable to IMS (e.g. 1000 txns/sec), but offered much more flexible query capabilities than IMS (due to the network structure rather than a hierarchical structure). The company has a stellar growth history. Then, circa 1986, IBM released DB2, which supported 3 (!) transactions per second. The idea that an enterprise could run OLTP applications on DB2 was ludicrous. But that didn't matter. It was relational, and relational would end war and feed the hungry. Cullinet crashed and burned. In 1989 it was acquired by CA.
Such is the nature of a disruptive innovation. Anne On 12/19/06, Gregg Wonderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steve Jones wrote: > On 18/12/06, Stuart Charlton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<stuartcharlton%40yahoo.com> > <mailto:stuartcharlton%40yahoo.com>> wrote: > > --- Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <jones.steveg%40gmail.com> > > > REST is _not_ a silver bullet, remote invocation is _not_ a challenge > > > and REST is only disruptive in that it stops people looking for the > > > true disruption which will come when we consider remote invocation a > > > true commodity. > > > > In 1971, this might read as: "Relations are _not_ a silver bullet, data > > management is _not_ a challenge, and relational databases are only > > disruptive in that they stop people looking for the true disruption > > which will come when we consider data management a true commodity." > > Ummm I don't think so, lots of people thought that data was a massive > issue in 1971 and the concept of data relations wasn't well > understood. Relational databases were disruptive (although not for > quite along time) once they became more of a commodity, and the degree > to which they were disruptive was that they replaced Hierachical (ummm > XML anyone?) data structures. One of the important parts of database history is that RDBMs were created and evolved in the timeframe that opensource projects visible on 'usenet', were all about non-data computing problems. Mainly it was all about networking and administration back in those days. Also, the size of database systems was "huge" compared to the average project for opensource at that time. The cost of those systems was huge as well. Only more recently have opensource RDBMs come of age to commoditize that aspect of computing systems. Opensource software system development is a well oiled machine these days. The next thing that will be disruptive is the $100.00 PC. That will cause many consumer electronics companies to rethink their business. Small companies will be able to create vertical market devices with just software investment. This is the type of device where Jini and other mobile code platforms will accel at delivering systems that actually evolve and mature without the user interacting with them. Gregg Wonderly
