Re: Is DB2/400 still the correct terminology fo DB2 on the IBM i? -- MIDRANGE-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.

Subject: Re: Is DB2/400 still the correct terminology fo DB2 on the IBM i?
From: John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:09:31 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Roger Harman <roger.harman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Scott Forstie, a DB2 developer, spoke at our user group last year. It was referred to as "IBM DB2 for i" or just "DB2 for i".

To address Justin's "mouthful" comment: If you leave off the "IBM",
it's not too long: just five syllables. "DB2/400" is pronounced with
six. I'll grant that "for eye" doesn't roll off the tongue as well as
"four hundred", though. So for me it's about a wash, from a pure
pronunciation standpoint.

John Y.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.