In the 70s and early 80s, when mainframe databases ruled and the micro- and mini-computer revolutions were in their infancy, there were literally hundreds of companies competing to be the new database of choice.
It had become clear that as more companies began using smaller computers, they could neither afford the database technology available on the mainframe, nor the cost of custom coding flat or index file data-manipulation applicationsfor each new application that they developed.
The rise and adoption of the relational database became a key driver that allowed minicomputers and PC networks to replace mainframes as the primary business platform. Today, there are only three or four primary database vendors left standing (depending on how you count them): IBM (DB/2), Oracle, Microsoft (SQL Server), and Sybase.
In the 70s and early 80s, when mainframe databases ruled and the micro- and mini-computer revolutions were in their infancy, there were literally hundreds of companies competing to be the new database of choice.
It had become clear that as more companies began using smaller computers, they could neither afford the database technology available on the mainframe, nor the cost of custom coding flat or index file data-manipulation applicationsfor each new application that they developed.
The rise and adoption of the relational database became a key driver that allowed minicomputers and PC networks to replace mainframes as the primary business platform. Today, there are only three or four primary database vendors left standing (depending on how you count them): IBM (DB/2), Oracle, Microsoft (SQL Server), and Sybase.
If you check out the relatively nascent market for application servers, you’ll see a similar pattern emerging. The first inclination is to begin considering technology investments before you’re left with applications that have to be rewritten or ported to a different platform, because your vendor no longer exists. But a bigger question looms: Do you really need an application server?